Federal Register Vol. 80, No.167,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 167 (August 28, 2015)

Page Range52173-52373
FR Document

80_FR_167
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 52274 - Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment; Framework for Screening Analysis; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 52351 - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Kewaunee Power StationPDF
80 FR 52294 - Medicare Program; Solicitation of Nominations to the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient PaymentPDF
80 FR 52357 - Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC)PDF
80 FR 52368 - Notice of Lithium Battery Safety Public Meeting and Request for InformationPDF
80 FR 52358 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Emergency Clearance: Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): B4UFLY Smartphone AppPDF
80 FR 52174 - FOIA Fee Schedule UpdatePDF
80 FR 52236 - Stream Protection RulePDF
80 FR 52265 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 52295 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) Program Performance ReportPDF
80 FR 52236 - Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources PermitsPDF
80 FR 52255 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19439PDF
80 FR 52269 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
80 FR 52268 - Eric S. Morris v. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, SERC Reliability Corporation; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 52269 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 52194 - Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program RevisionPDF
80 FR 52272 - Creation of a New System of Records Notice: EventbritePDF
80 FR 52296 - Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 52224 - Designation of Official Names and Proper Names for Certain Biological ProductsPDF
80 FR 52271 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)PDF
80 FR 52270 - Amendments, Extensions, and/or Issuances of Experimental Use PermitsPDF
80 FR 52273 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 52325 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52326 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52327 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 52188 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River MM 180.0 to 180.5; St. Louis, MOPDF
80 FR 52187 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Housatonic River, Stratford, CTPDF
80 FR 52247 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas State Advisory Committee for the Purpose of Planning Project ActivityPDF
80 FR 52188 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Newark, NJPDF
80 FR 52372 - Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 52282 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
80 FR 52338 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Agriculture Workers SurveyPDF
80 FR 52340 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Survey of Working WomenPDF
80 FR 52339 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Demonstration and Evaluation of the Short-Time Compensation ProgramPDF
80 FR 52257 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
80 FR 52345 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 52345 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 52372 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52344 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 52337 - Everglades General Management Plan/East Everglades Wilderness Study, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Everglades National Park, FloridaPDF
80 FR 52336 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Transportation Plan for Acadia National Park, MainePDF
80 FR 52250 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science CenterPDF
80 FR 52258 - Guidelines for Carrying Out Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 52324 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
80 FR 52331 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 52254 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52255 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52254 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52252 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52373 - Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 52348 - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1; Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration DeterminationPDF
80 FR 52287 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 52289 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 52292 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 52291 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 52266 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) Second Follow-up Main Study and 2018 Panel MaintenancePDF
80 FR 52332 - Tribal Education Department Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 52333 - Sovereignty in Indian EducationPDF
80 FR 52365 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Collection of InformationPDF
80 FR 52371 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Airline Service Quality Performance-Part 234PDF
80 FR 52274 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Revision and Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0072)PDF
80 FR 52342 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for Reinstatement With Change of a Previously Approved Collection, Banks Conversions and MergersPDF
80 FR 52344 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for Reinstatement With Change of a Previously Approved Collection, Organization and Operation of a Federal Credit Union Loan ParticipationPDF
80 FR 52245 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision and Extension of Approved Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
80 FR 52247 - Census Advisory CommitteesPDF
80 FR 52363 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LIONHEART K18; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 52324 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: MeetingPDF
80 FR 52334 - Public Land Order No. 7838; Withdrawal of National Forest System Land Adjacent to Jewel Cave National Monument; South DakotaPDF
80 FR 52361 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel KWIAT NIGHTS II; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 52362 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LYNX; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 52267 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PortsmouthPDF
80 FR 52362 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PRIVATEER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 52206 - Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps: Availability of Provisional Analysis ToolsPDF
80 FR 52337 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review; Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection (OMB Control Number 1006-0014)PDF
80 FR 52210 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray ValvesPDF
80 FR 52268 - Notice of Public Hearings for the Draft Northern Pass Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0463)PDF
80 FR 52364 - Massachusetts Department of Transportation-Acquisition Exemption-Certain Assets of Pan Am Southern LLCPDF
80 FR 52279 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 52279 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
80 FR 52338 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and ProcedurePDF
80 FR 52359 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American Airlines, Inc.PDF
80 FR 52357 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Chevron Aircraft OperationsPDF
80 FR 52249 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52345 - Instructions for Recording and Reporting Occupational Radiation Dose DataPDF
80 FR 52346 - Protection Against Extreme Wind Events and Missiles for Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
80 FR 52295 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52173 - Default Investment FundPDF
80 FR 52372 - Surety Companies Acceptable On Federal Bonds: National Liability & Fire Insurance CompanyPDF
80 FR 52256 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Fisheries ResearchPDF
80 FR 52267 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual State Application Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education ActPDF
80 FR 52352 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Amendments to MSRB Rule A-12, on Registration, and MSRB Rule A-13, on Underwriting and Transaction Assessments for Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities DealersPDF
80 FR 52217 - Update of Overflight Fee RatesPDF
80 FR 52335 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 52326 - Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 52275 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 52249 - Cryogenic Flow Meter Calibrations: Request for Information and Notice of Public WorkshopPDF
80 FR 52248 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52360 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
80 FR 52215 - Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA AirplanesPDF
80 FR 52264 - Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Announcement of a Public Hearing for the Installation of a Terminal Groin Structure at the Eastern End of Holden Beach, Extending into the Atlantic Ocean, West of Lockwood Folly Inlet (Brunswick County, NC)PDF
80 FR 52328 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition, Form I-129S; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.PDF
80 FR 52342 - Notice of Information Collection; Notice (15-072)PDF
80 FR 52341 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 52329 - 30-Day Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection for HUD Generic Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Proposed New HUD Services or ProductsPDF
80 FR 52325 - Proposed Collection; 60-day Comment Request: A Multi-Center International Hospital-Based Case-Control Study of Lymphoma in Asia (AsiaLymph) (NCI)PDF
80 FR 52204 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
80 FR 52299 - Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order; Guidance for Tobacco Retailers; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 52231 - Reportable Transactions Penalties Under Section 6707APDF
80 FR 52285 - Submission to OMB for Review; OMB Control No. 3090-00XX; Wireless Telecommunications Company ApplicationPDF
80 FR 52211 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited AirplanesPDF
80 FR 52300 - 340B Drug Pricing Program Omnibus GuidancePDF
80 FR 52212 - Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating EnginesPDF
80 FR 52177 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 52185 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft EnginesPDF
80 FR 52190 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
80 FR 52198 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna QuotasPDF
80 FR 52331 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 52359 - Environmental Impact Statement: Hidalgo County, TexasPDF
80 FR 52175 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 52179 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 52182 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 52245 - Superior National Forest, Minnesota; School Trust Land ExchangePDF
80 FR 52363 - Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for Modification of Special PermitPDF

Issue

80 167 Friday, August 28, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 52245 2015-21331
Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations, 52247-52248 2015-21330 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52287-52294 2015-21343 2015-21344 2015-21345 2015-21346 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment, 52294-52295 2015-21419 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52295 2015-21304 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Texas State Advisory Committee, 52247 2015-21370 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Housatonic River, Stratford, CT, 52187-52188 2015-21371 Newark Bay, Newark, NJ, 52188 2015-21369 Safety Zones: Upper Mississippi River MM 180.0 to 180.5; St. Louis, MO, 52188-52190 2015-21373 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52327-52328 2015-21374 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52248-52249 2015-21286 2015-21307
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 52257-52258 2015-21363 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology Program, 52295-52296 2015-21409 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board RULES FOIA Fee Schedule Update, 52174 2015-21413 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52265-52266 2015-21411 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual State Application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 52267 2015-21297 High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 Second Follow-up Main Study and 2018 Panel Maintenance, 52266 2015-21342 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 52210-52211 2015-21319 Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools, 52206-52210 2015-21321 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Northern Pass Transmission Line Project; Public Hearings, 52268 2015-21317 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth, 52267-52268 2015-21324
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Installation of a Terminal Groin Structure at the Eastern End of Holden Beach, Brunswick County, NC, 52264-52265 2015-21282 Guidelines for Carrying Out Section 221(a) (4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, 52258-52264 2015-21355 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard, 52190-52194 2015-21199 State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision: Michigan, 52194-52198 2015-21385 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources Permits, 52236-52244 2015-21401 NOTICES Amendments, Extensions, and/or Issuances of Experimental Use Permits, 52270-52271 2015-21380 Environmental Impact Statements; Weekly Receipts, 52273-52274 2015-21379 Guidance: Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment; Framework for Screening Analysis, 52274 2015-21483 Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 52271-52272 2015-21381 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52272-52273 2015-21384 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 52182-52185 2015-20951 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 52175-52177, 52179-52182 2015-20959 2015-20961 Pratt and Whitney Turbofan Engines, 52177-52179 2015-21204 Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines, 52185-52187 2015-21202 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes, 52211-52212 2015-21247 Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines, 52212-52215 2015-21205 SOCATA Airplanes, 52215-52217 2015-21283 Update of Overflight Fee Rates, 52217-52224 2015-21293 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: B4UFLY Smartphone App, 52358-52359 2015-21415 Meetings: RTCA Program Management Committee, 52357-52358 2015-21418 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries, 52357, 52359 2015-21308 2015-21309 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52274-52275 2015-21335 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 52269 2015-21386 Complaints: Eric S. Morris v. North American Electric Reliability Corp.; SERC Reliability Corp., 52268-52269 2015-21387 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 52269-52270 2015-21388 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Hidalgo County, TX, 52359-52360 2015-20968 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, 52275-52279 2015-21288 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52279-52285 2015-21312 2015-21367 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 52279 2015-21313 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board RULES Default Investment Fund, 52173-52174 2015-21302 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects, 52360-52361 2015-21285 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: National Liability and Fire Insurance Company, 52372 2015-21299 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Designation of Official Names and Proper Names for Certain Biological Products, 52224-52231 2015-21382 NOTICES Guidance: Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order, 52299-52300 2015-21271 Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products, 52296-52299 2015-21383 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Superior National Forest, Minnesota; School Trust Land Exchange, 52245-52247 2015-20834 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Wireless Telecommunications Company Application, 52285-52287 2015-21249 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52331-52332 2015-21353 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 52324 2015-21354 Meetings: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, 52324-52325 2015-21328
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Guidance: 340B Drug Pricing Program Omnibus, 52300-52324 2015-21246 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Proposed New HUD Services or Products, 52329-52331 2015-21275 Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 52331 2015-21069 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Funding Availability: Sovereignty in Indian Education, 52333-52334 2015-21338 Tribal Education Department Grant Program, 52332-52333 2015-21339 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Reclamation Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Reportable Transactions Penalties under Section 6707A, 52231-52236 2015-21259 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 52338 2015-21310 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Demonstration and Evaluation of the Short-Time Compensation Program, 52339-52340 2015-21364 National Agriculture Workers Survey, 52338-52339 2015-21366 Survey of Working Women, 52340-52341 2015-21365 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Public Land Orders: Withdrawal of National Forest System Land Adjacent to Jewel Cave National Monument; South Dakota, 52334-52335 2015-21327 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LIONHEART K18, 52363 2015-21329 Vessel LYNX, 52362-52363 2015-21325 Vessel PRIVATEER, 52362 2015-21323 Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel KWIAT NIGHTS II, 52361-52362 2015-21326 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52341-52342 2015-21277 2015-21279 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Banks Conversions and Mergers, 52342-52344 2015-21334 Organization and Operation of a Federal Credit Union Loan Participation, 52344 2015-21333 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Cryogenic Flow Meter Calibrations, 52249-52250 2015-21287 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: A Multi-Center International Hospital-Based Case-Control Study of Lymphoma in Asia, 52325-52326 2015-21273 Meetings: Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, 52326 2015-21291 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 52325-52327 2015-21377 2015-21378 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas, 52198-52204 2015-21147 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 52204-52205 2015-21272 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 52250-52251 2015-21356 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 52254-52255 2015-21350 2015-21351 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 52254 2015-21352 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 52252-52254 2015-21349 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 19439, 52255-52256 2015-21393 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Fisheries Research, 52256-52257 2015-21298 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Everglades General Management Plan/East Everglades Wilderness Study, Everglades National Park, FL, 52337 2015-21358 Transportation Plan for Acadia National Park, ME, 52336-52337 2015-21357 National Register of Historic Places; Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 52335-52336 2015-21292 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permit Applications, 52344-52345 2015-21359 2015-21362 Permit Applications: Antarctic Conservation Act, 52345 2015-21361 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Facility Operating Licenses: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, 52348-52351 2015-21347 Guidance: Instructions for Recording and Reporting Occupational Radiation Dose Data, 52345-52346 2015-21306 Protection Against Extreme Wind Events And Missiles For Nuclear Power Plants, 52346-52348 2015-21305 Petitions: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station and Kewaunee Power Station, 52351-52352 2015-21431 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Special Permit Applications: Hazardous Materials; Modifications, 52363-52364 2015-20483 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52337-52338 2015-21320 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 52352-52357 2015-21296 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Stream Protection Rule: Environmental Impact Statement; Public Hearings, 52236 2015-21412 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition Exemptions: Massachusetts Department of Transportation; Certain Assets of Pan Am Southern, LLC, 52364-52365 2015-21316 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

See

Transportation Statistics Bureau

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52365-52368 2015-21337 Meetings: Lithium Battery Safety, 52368-52371 2015-21416
Transportation Statistics Transportation Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Airline Service Quality Performance, 52371-52372 2015-21336 Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52372 2015-21360
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition, 52328-52329 2015-21281 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, 52372-52373 2015-21348 2015-21368 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.

80 167 Friday, August 28, 2015 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD 5 CFR Parts 1600, 1601, and 1651 Default Investment Fund AGENCY:

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) is amending its regulations to change the default investment fund for certain participants in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).

DATES:

This rule is effective September 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Austen Townsend at (202) 864-8647.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Agency administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees, members of the uniformed services, and spouse beneficiaries. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).

On July 13, 2015, the Agency published a proposed rule with request for comments in the Federal Register (80 FR 39974, July 13, 2015). The Agency received no comments and, therefore, is publishing the proposed rule as final without change.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal civilian employees and spouse beneficiaries who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the Agency.

Paperwork Reduction Act

I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 1532 is not required.

Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the Federal Register. The rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 1600, 1601, and 1651

Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.

Gregory T. Long, Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency amends 5 CFR chapter VI as follows:

PART 1600—EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION ELECTIONS, CONTRIBUTION ALLOCATIONS, AND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 1600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432(a), 8432(b), 8432(c), 8432(j), 8432d, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1).

2. Amend § 1600.37 by revising the heading, the introductory text, and paragraphs (c) and (d), and by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1600.37 Notice.

The Board shall furnish all new employees and all rehired employees covered by the automatic enrollment program a notice that accurately describes:

(c) The fund in which the default employee and agency contributions will be invested unless the employee makes a contribution allocation;

(d) The employee's ability to request a refund of any default employee contributions (adjusted for allocable gains and losses) and the procedure to request such a refund; and

(e) That an investment in any fund other than the G Fund is made at the employee's risk, that the employee is not protected by the United States Government or the Board against any loss on the investment, and that neither the United States Government nor the Board guarantees any return on the investment.

PART 1601—PARTICIPANTS' CHOICES OF TSP FUNDS 3. The authority citation for part 1601 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432d, 8438, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1).

4. Amend § 1601.13, by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4), redesignating paragraph (a)(5) as (a)(6) and revising it, and adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
§ 1601.13 Elections.

(a) * * *

(3) A uniformed services participant or a participant enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 who elects for the first time to invest in a TSP Fund other than the G Fund must execute an acknowledgement of risk in accordance with § 1601.33;

(4) All deposits made on behalf of a participant enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 or a uniformed services participant who does not have a contribution allocation in effect will be invested in the G Fund. A participant who is enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 and subsequently rehired on or after September 5, 2015 and has a positive account balance will be considered enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 for purposes of this paragraph;

(5) All deposits made on behalf of a participant first enrolled on or after September 5, 2015 who does not have a contribution allocation in effect will be invested in the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund; and

(6) Once a contribution allocation becomes effective, it remains in effect until it is superseded by a subsequent contribution allocation or the participant's account balance is reduced to zero. If a rehired participant has a positive account balance and a contribution allocation in effect, then the participant's contribution allocation will remain in effect until a new allocation is made. If, however, the participant has a zero account balance, then the participant's contributions will be allocated to the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund until a new allocation is made.

§ 1601.22 [Amended]
5. Amend § 1601.22 by removing paragraph (a)(3).
6. Amend § 1601.33 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a), to read as follows:
§ 1601.33 Acknowledgement of risk.

(a) A uniformed services participant or a participant enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 who wants to invest in a TSP Fund other than the G Fund must execute an acknowledgement of risk for that fund. * * *

PART 1651—DEATH BENEFITS 7. The authority citation for part 1651 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 8424(d), 8432d, 8432(j), 8433(e), 8435(c)(2), 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1).

8. Amend § 1651.2 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 1651.2 Entitlement to funds in a deceased participant's account.

(d) * * * The account will accrue earnings at the G Fund rate in accordance with 5 CFR part 1645 until it is paid out or a beneficiary participant account is established under this part.

3. Amend § 1651.19, by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1651.19 Beneficiary participant accounts.

(a) * * * Regardless of the allocation of the deceased participant's account balance at the time of his or her death, each beneficiary participant account, once established, will be allocated 100 percent to the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund based on the beneficiary participant's date of birth. * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-21302 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 10 CFR Part 1703 FOIA Fee Schedule Update AGENCY:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION:

Establishment of FOIA Fee Schedule.

SUMMARY:

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule Update pursuant to the Board's regulations.

DATES:

Effective September 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark T. Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). On July 9, 2015 the Board published for comment in the Federal Register its Proposed FOIA Fee Schedule, 80 FR 39389. No comments were received in response to that notice, and the Board is now establishing the Fee Schedule.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. The previous Fee Schedule Update went into effect on June 1, 2014. 79 FR 31848.

Board Action

Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA Services [Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)] Search or Review Charge $85.00 per hour. Copy Charge (paper) $.05 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate approximately $.10 per page). Electronic Media $5.00 per electronic media. Copy Charge (audio and video cassette) Actual commercial rates. Duplication of DVD $25.00 for each individual DVD; $16.50 for each duplicate DVD. Copy Charge for large documents (e.g., maps, diagrams) Actual commercial rates. Dated: August 21, 2015. Mark T. Welch, General Manager.
[FR Doc. 2015-21413 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD; Amendment 39-18248; AD 2015-17-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. This AD requires replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0822.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19574).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-37, dated October 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Design review found that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, is lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve. This could cause the flexible hose to burst before it is able to vent the excess oxygen overboard. If an ignition source is present, the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space may result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the oxygen hose assembly with a new design oxygen hose assembly.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822-0004.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 19574, April 13, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

Mesa Airlines and Envoy Air Inc. asked that the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (80 FR 19574, April 13, 2015) be changed.

Mesa Airlines stated that the current compliance time would immediately ground 78 airplanes on the effective date of the AD, and with increased demand for replacement parts it would be difficult to recover. Mesa Airlines asked that we change the compliance time to “Within 6,000 flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” Mesa Airlines added that this would allow for scheduling with heavy maintenance inspection and parts procurement.

Envoy Air Inc. stated that a large number of affected airplanes have flown more than 5,800 total flight hours. Envoy Air Inc. noted that the proposed compliance time “before the accumulation of 5,800 total flight hours” would mean that most of the affected airplanes would be required to comply with this AD prior to the effective date to remain in compliance. Envoy Air Inc. asked that we change the compliance time to “Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of the AD.” Envoy Air Inc. stated that this would more clearly communicate the desired compliance time for this AD.

We partially agree with the requests. We have changed the compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD to “Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” This change matches the compliance time listed in the MCAI, and will allow operators to remain in compliance.

We do not agree that the compliance time should be extended to “Within 6,000 flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” After considering all the available information, we have determined that the compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the replacement. However, if additional data are presented that would justify a longer compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 19574, April 13, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 19574, April 13, 2015).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B, dated May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

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

We also estimate that it takes about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $340,000, or $850 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-15  Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18248. Docket No. FAA-2015-0822; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-210-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10336 inclusive.

(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15297 inclusive.

(3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19038 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace all oxygen hose assemblies having part number (P/N) S6946-01 with new, improved assemblies having P/N BA670-44025-001, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B, dated May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013. For airplanes on which Supplemental Type Certificate ST01648NY (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01648NY.pdf) is installed, only PART B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B, dated May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013, is required.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the replacement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if that action was performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, dated May 21, 2013; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision A, dated September 23, 2013; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen hose assembly, P/N S6946-01, on any airplane.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(k) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-37, dated October 17, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0822-0004.

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

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-013, Revision B, dated May 20, 2015, including Appendix A, dated May 21, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2015. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20961 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1130; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-04-AD; Amendment 39-18250; AD 2015-17-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D and PW4170 engines, and certain PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold interface fuel leaks. This AD requires inspecting fuel nozzles for signs of leakage, replacing hardware as required, and torqueing to specified requirement. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks which could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective October 2, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1130.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1130; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all PW PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D and PW4170 engines, and certain PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2015 (80 FR 22140). The NPRM was prompted by reports of four fuel nozzle leaks in service and an additional six fuel nozzle leaks found during shop visits. The root cause is inadequate torque of the fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold B-nuts for the temperatures that the fuel nozzles experience. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting fuel nozzles for signs of leakage, replacing hardware as required, and torqueing B-nuts to specified requirement. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks which could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under CFR Part 51

We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G-100-A73-44, Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015. This ASB describes procedures for fuel supply manifold inspection and re-torque of the B-nut connection. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 22140, April 21, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change Referenced Service Information

Korean Air requested that this AD mandate following PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44 Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015 instead of PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014. Korean Air would like to receive credit for service performed in accordance with the latest revision of the ASB.

We agree. We changed this AD to include PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44 Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015 and added a Credit for Previous Action section to provide credit when PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014 is followed, before the effective date of this AD.

Request To Add Service Information

Korean Air requested that engines incorporating Special Instruction (SI) 129F-14 meet the requirement for compliance with this AD since SI 129F-14 provides the same instructions as PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014 and PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44 Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015.

We agree. We added SI 129F-14 to the Credit for Previous Action section.

Request To Change Mandatory Terminating Action

Korean Air requested that the Mandatory Terminating Action section be changed to state that the actions listed are closing actions to the repetitive inspections defined in the Compliance section.

We agree. We changed the Mandatory Terminating Action section by adding, “As terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD do the following:”.

Request To Change Applicability

PW requested that engines incorporating PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G-100-72-220, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2011 be added to the Applicability section.

We disagree. Engines incorporating PW SB No. PW4G-100-72-220, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2011 are identified in the Applicability section by model designation. We did not change this AD.

Request To Redefine “Cycles”

PW requested that the definition of cycles be changed from “cycles since new or cycles since the incorporation of PW SB No. PW4G-100-72-214, dated December 15, 2011 or SB No. PW4G-100-72-219, Revision 1, dated October 5, 2011” to “since new (1st run) or since last torque application to the B-nuts on the fuel nozzle installation.” The justification for this request is that the B-nuts could have been torqued subsequent to the incorporation of the service bulletins.

We agree. We changed the Definition paragraph to define cycles as “. . . since new or cycles since last torque application to the B-nuts on the fuel nozzle installation.”

Request To Change Compliance Time

Asiana Airlines requested that the compliance time listed in this AD match the dates listed in the ASB. Asiana believes the compliance time listed in this AD is more restrictive than the dates listed in the ASB.

We disagree. Using cycles since the effective date of this AD instead of calendar dates provides greater fleet management flexibility to the operator while acceptably resolving the unsafe condition.

Conclusion

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

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD would affect about 72 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that parts replacement will cost about $1,356 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $391,392.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-17 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-18250 ; Docket No. FAA-2014-1130; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-04-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective October 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D and PW4170 engines; and all PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A turbofan engines that have incorporated either PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G-100-72-214, dated December 15, 2011 or PW SB No. PW4G-100-72-219, Revision 1, dated October 5, 2011.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold interface fuel leaks. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks which could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) Within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and within every 800 flight hours since last inspection thereafter, inspect all fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold interfaces for evidence of fuel leaks, soot, and coke formation. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G-100-A73-44, Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015 to do the inspections.

(2) Replace hardware that fails an inspection. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, of PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015 to do the replacement.

(f) Mandatory Terminating Action

As terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD do the following:

(1) Inspect all fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold interfaces for fuel leaks, soot, and coke formation, replace hardware that fails inspection, and re-torque all fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold B-nuts as follows:

(i) For engines with fewer than 1,500 cycles on the effective date of this AD, before accumulating another 650 cycles, not to exceed 1,900 cycles.

(ii) For engines with 1,500 cycles or more, but less than 2,500 cycles on the effective date of this AD, before accumulating another 400 cycles, not to exceed 2,700 cycles.

(iii) For engines with 2,500 cycles or more on the effective date of this AD, before accumulating another 200 cycles.

(2) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Parts B through E, of PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015 to do the inspection, replacement, and retorqueing.

(g) Credit for Previous Action

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (e) and (f) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using the procedures specified in PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014 or Special Instruction 129F-14.

(h) Definition

For the purpose of this AD “cycles” is defined as cycles since new or cycles since last torque application to the B-nuts on the fuel nozzle installation.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

(j) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, Revision 1, dated February 12, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 18, 2015. Diane S. Romanosky, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21204 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0823; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-211-AD; Amendment 39-18249; AD 2015-17-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. This AD requires replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0823 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0823.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19570).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-36, dated October 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Design review found that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, is lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve. This could cause the flexible hose to burst before it is able to vent the excess oxygen overboard. If an ignition source is present, the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space may result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the oxygen hose assembly with a new design oxygen hose assembly.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0823-0002. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 19570, April 13, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

Mesa Airlines asked that the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM (80 FR 19570, April 13, 2015) be changed. Mesa Airlines stated that the current compliance time would immediately ground airplanes on the effective date of the AD. Mesa Airlines asked that we change the compliance time to “Within 6,000 flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” Mesa Airlines added that this would allow for scheduling with heavy maintenance inspection and parts procurement.

We partially agree with the request. We have changed the compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD to “Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” This change matches the compliance time in the MCAI, and will allow operators to remain in compliance.

We do not agree that the compliance time should be extended to “Within 6,000 flight hours, or within 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first”. After considering all the available information, we have determined that the compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the replacement. However, if additional data are presented that would justify a longer compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Refer To Revised Service Information

Richard Rupslauskas asked that we include Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, Revision A, in the NPRM (80 FR 19570, April 13, 2015), and give credit for Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, dated May 21, 2013. The commenter stated that Revision A should be distributed very soon, and added that no additional work will be required on aircraft that have had the modification incorporated using the original issue of the service information. The commenter added that the NPRM should recognize that either the original or Revision A of the service information is acceptable as a method of compliance.

We do not agree to reference Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, Revision A, because that revision has not yet been issued. However, after Revision A is issued, affected operators may request approval to use that revision of the referenced service bulletin as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

Request To Include Parts Cost

Richard Rupslauskas stated that the parts cost is $835 per airplane, and added that since 575 airplanes are affected, the total cost for parts is $480,125.

We infer that the commenter wants the parts cost included in the “Costs of Compliance” section of this AD. We agree to include the parts cost of $835 in that section. We have changed this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 19570, April 13, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 19570, April 13, 2015).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, dated May 21, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the oxygen hose assembly with a new, improved assembly. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 575 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. Required parts will cost about $835 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $577,875, or $1,005 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0823; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-16 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18249. Docket No. FAA-2015-0823; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-211-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by results of a design review indicating that the burst pressure of the flexible hose, used to vent oxygen from the high-pressure relief valve of the oxygen cylinder overboard, was lower than the opening pressure of the high-pressure relief valve, which could cause the flexible hose to burst before it can vent the excess oxygen overboard. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of oxygen in an enclosed space, which could result in an uncontrolled oxygen-fed fire if an ignition source is nearby.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

Within 5,800 flight hours or 44 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace all oxygen hose assemblies having part number (P/N) 38026-4-0280-000 with new, improved assemblies having P/N 601R44045-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, dated May 21, 2013.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen hose assembly, P/N 38026-4-0280-000, on any airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-36, dated October 17, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0823-0002.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-35-018, dated May 21, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2015. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20959 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0455; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-006-AD; Amendment 39-18247; AD 2015-17-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that during a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in certain areas of the cargo compartment have been found, especially on the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on the left-hand side. This AD requires a rototest inspection of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, including doing all applicable related investigative actions, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0455; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0455.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2014 (79 FR 42716).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0310, dated December 20, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

During a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in the cargo compartment area between Frame (FR) 50 and FR 63, have been found, especially on the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on [the] left hand side.

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

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the frames in the cargo compartment area and of the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on the left hand (LH) side, and depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires a modification, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

The actions in this AD include a rototest inspection for cracking of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage; modification of the fuselage, including doing all applicable related investigative actions; and repair if necessary. Related investigative actions include rotating probe inspections for cracking of the holes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0455-0002. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Remove Service Information Not Applicable to the U.S. Fleet

Delta Air Lines (DAL), United Airlines (UAL), and US Airways requested that certain service information be removed from the NPRM (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014) as it is not applicable to the U.S. fleet.

DAL stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, which provides a terminating modification for the repetitive inspections specified in the NPRM (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014), is one of eight structural modification service bulletins required to operate Model A320 airplanes beyond 48,000 flight cycles/96,000 flight hours (referred to as extended service goal (ESG)). DAL stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, does not affect DAL or any other U.S. operator, since Airbus only recognizes airplane effectivity for those operators that have accomplished this service bulletin (which can only be purchased from Airbus) through ESG embodiment.

UAL and US Airways stated that, in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014), modification of the fuselage in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, must be accomplished before exceeding 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. UAL and US Airways stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, is not effective for all manufacturer serial numbers specified in the service information and is only applicable to a select number of operators. UAL commented that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, was originally related to the ESG modification requirements and has not yet been revised to match the effective manufacturer serial numbers in specified Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012.

We agree with these commenters' requests. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, does not apply to the U.S. fleet because the terminating action is not applicable for all manufacturer serial numbers. Therefore, we have deleted the modification requirement that was specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014), and have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Revise Certain Service Information

DAL also requested that the FAA ask Airbus to update the Effectivity in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1261, dated December 21, 2012, along with the other structural modification service information required for operation beyond 48,000 total flight cycles/96,000 total flight hours.

We disagree with this request. As we stated previously, we have deleted the modification requirement that was specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014). In addition, we do not agree with delaying this action for mitigating safety risks addressed in this AD until after the release of the manufacturer's additional planned service bulletin(s). We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Separate AD for the Structural Modification

DAL requested that a separate AD be issued that would specify all required service information for the modification in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014), which must be accomplished prior to operation beyond 48,000 total flight cycles/96,000 total flight hours for affected manufacturer serial numbers.

We disagree with issuing a separate AD action that would require all modifications associated with operations exceeding 48,000 total flight cycles/96,000 total flight hours (referred to as ESG). ESG is not related to the unsafe condition in this AD. ESG is not a requirement, but an option to operate with an extended operational limit of 60,000 total flight cycles/120,000 total flight hours and is contingent on accomplishment of specific modifications. This AD is specific to mitigating the risks associated with the identified unsafe condition, which were identified during full scale fatigue testing. Choosing the option to operate airplanes exceeding 48,000 total flight cycles/96,000 total flight hours lies with the operator and has no bearing on the mitigation of the unsafe condition identified in this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Requests To Identify Actions Required for Compliance

DAL and UAL requested a statement in the NPRM (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014) to specify the actions that are required for compliance (RC) in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012.

UAL stated that paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012, meets the technical intent of the inspection in the service information as that paragraph specifies removal of the affected fasteners, accomplishment of the rototest inspection, and re-installation of the fasteners. UAL stated that the access and close-up actions may then be specified by the operator as deemed necessary. UAL commented that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014) could specify that the inspection be performed in accordance with paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012.

DAL stated that the FAA issued Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176 in December 2011 and AC 20-176A in June 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/979ddd1479e1ec6f86257cfc0052d4e9/$FILE/AC%2020-176A.pdf); and Order 8110.117A, dated June 18, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/d715cdfc08ac0ddc86257cfc00528297/$FILE/110.117A.pdf), which provides guidance for issuing service information related to ADs. DAL commented that paragraph 2-10 of AC 20-176A states that “steps that have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating the unsafe condition in an AD should be identified in a SB with “RC” (Required for Compliance”). DAL stated that there are no “RC” identifiers in the work steps of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012.

DAL also requested that the FAA evaluate service bulletins for adherence to the guidance provided in AC 20-176A, dated June 16, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/979ddd1479e1ec6f86257cfc0052d4e9/$FILE/AC%2020-176A.pdf); and Order 8110.117A, dated June 18, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/d715cdfc08ac0ddc86257cfc00528297/$FILE/110.117A.pdf), when proposing new AD's.

We agree with the concept of minimizing AD requirements when appropriate. The FAA released AC 20-176A, dated June 16, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/979ddd1479e1ec6f86257cfc0052d4e9/$FILE/AC%2020-176A.pdf); and Order 8110.117A, dated June 18, 2014 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/d715cdfc08ac0ddc86257cfc00528297/$FILE/110.117A.pdf), which include the concept of RC. The FAA has begun implementing this concept in ADs when we receive service information containing RC steps. While some design approval holders have implemented the RC concept, the implementation is voluntary. The FAA does not intend to develop or revise AD requirements to incorporate the RC concept if it is not included in the service information.

However for this AD, we reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012, and determined that the procedures in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. All other steps in the Accomplishment Instructions may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures in paragraph 3.C., “Procedures,” can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to procedures in paragraph 3.C., “Procedures,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 42716, July 23, 2014).

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012. The service information describes procedures for a rototest inspection of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings between frame (FR) 50 and FR 63 (left-hand side only) for Model A320 and A321 series airplanes and FR 53 and FR 63 (left-hand side only) for Model A319 series airplanes of the fuselage, including other actions, and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 847 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 471 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts (for the modification) would cost about $6,570 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $39,474,435, or $46,605 per product.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0455; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-14 Airbus: Amendment 39-18247. Docket No. FAA-2014-0455; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-006-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports that, during a full scale fatigue test, several broken frames in certain areas of the cargo compartment have been found, especially on the cargo floor support fittings and open tack holes on the left-hand (LH) side. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD: Do a rototest inspection for cracking of the open tack holes and rivet holes at the cargo floor support fittings of the fuselage between frame (FR) 50 and FR 63 left-hand (LH) side only for Model A320 series airplanes, and A321 series airplanes; and between FR 53 and FR 63 LH side only for Model A319 series airplanes; in accordance with paragraph 3.C., “Procedures,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(1) For airplanes that have equal to or more than 45,000 total flight cycles or 90,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the rototest inspection within 1,000 flight cycles or 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(2) For airplanes that have equal to or more than 36,200 total flight cycles or 72,400 total flight hours, but less than 45,000 total flight cycles or 90,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the rototest inspection within 2,000 flight cycles or 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, but no later than before the accumulation of 46,000 total flight cycles or 92,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(3) For airplanes that have less than 36,200 total flight cycles or 72,400 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Do the rototest inspection before exceeding 38,200 total flight cycles or 76,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(h) Corrective Action

If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0310, dated December 20, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0455-0002.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1257, dated December 21, 2012.

(ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 13, 2015. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20951 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0900; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-12-AD; Amendment 39-18251; AD 2015-17-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines with a certain part number oil pump installed. This AD requires inspection, and if necessary, replacement before further flight of the oil pump driver assembly and/or the oil pump shaft, or the oil pump itself. This AD was prompted by cases of deterioration of the gas generator front bearing due to a link loss between the pump driver and the oil pump shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent link loss between the pump driver and the oil pump shaft, which could lead to an engine in-flight shutdown, forced landing, and damage to the helicopter.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0900.

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-2015-0900; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29224). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

A risk of an in-flight shutdown (IFSD) has been identified on an ARRIUS 2F engine, due to deterioration of gas generator front bearing. This could be the result of lack of lubrication, due to a link loss between pump driver and oil pump shaft.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cases of IFSD, possibly resulting in forced landing with consequent damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 319 79 4834, Version B, dated October 21, 2014. The MSB describes procedures for inspecting the oil pump driver assembly on the oil pump shaft, the pump driver splines, and the oil pump splines. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 29224, May 21, 2015).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects about 96 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about two hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts would cost about $17,312 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,678,272.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-18  Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-18251; Docket No. FAA-2015-0900; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-12-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective October 2, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines with oil pump, part number (P/N) 0319155050, installed, except for:

(1) Engines, equipped with an oil pump, P/N 0319155050, that were overhauled in a Turbomeca repair center after January 1, 2013, and

(2) Engines with a serial number of 34776 or higher, provided that the oil pump was not replaced on that engine since the first flight of that engine on a helicopter.

(d) Reason

This AD was prompted by cases of deterioration of the gas generator front bearing due to a link loss between the pump driver and the oil pump shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent link loss between the pump driver and the oil pump shaft, which could lead to an engine in-flight shutdown, forced landing, and damage to the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

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

(1) Inspect the pump driver assembly on the oil pump shaft, the pump driver splines, and the oil pump splines, using paragraph 2.4.2, Operating Instructions, of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 319 79 4834, Version B, dated October 21, 2014, as follows:

(i) For engines with fewer than 250 engine hours (EH), accumulated since new, since last overhaul, or since last installation of an affected oil pump, whichever occurred later, inspect before exceeding 300 EH, accumulated since new, since last overhaul, or since last installation of an affected oil pump, as applicable.

(ii) For engines with 250 EH or more, but fewer than 300 EH, accumulated since new, since last overhaul, or since last installation of an affected oil pump, whichever occurred later, inspect within 50 EH.

(iii) For engines with 300 EH or more, but fewer than 800 EH, accumulated since new, since last overhaul, or since last installation of an affected oil pump, whichever occurred later, inspect within 100 EH.

(iv) For engines with 800 EH or more, accumulated since new, since last overhaul, or since last installation of an affected oil pump, whichever occurred later, inspect during the next scheduled 500 EH inspection.

(2) If any oil pump drive assembly and/or oil pump shaft, or the oil pump itself, fails the inspection required by this AD, then before further flight, replace the failed part(s) with part(s) eligible for installation.

(3) The instruction to report inspection results and the instruction to return a compliance certificate to Turbomeca S.A. as stated in paragraph 2.4.2, Operating Instructions, of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 319 79 4834, Version B, dated October 21, 2014, are not required by this AD.

(f) Credit for Previous Action

If you inspected the oil pump driver assembly on the oil pump shaft, the pump driver splines, and the oil pump splines, and replaced any part(s) with part(s) eligible for installation before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 319 79 4834, Version A, dated November 25, 2013, you met the requirements of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

(h) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0049, dated March 17, 2015 (Corrected May 7, 2015), for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0900-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 319 79 4834, Version B, dated October 21, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 17, 2015. Diane S. Romanosky, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21202 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0772] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Housatonic River, Stratford, CT 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 Devon Bridge, across the Housatonic River, mile 3.9, at Stratford, CT. This deviation is necessary to perform superstructure repairs and timber ties replacement. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for 50 days.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on October 5, 2015 to 8 a.m. on November 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0772] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Devon Bridge, mile 3.9, across Housatonic River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.207(b).

The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels.

Connecticut DOT requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform superstructure repairs and timber ties replacement.

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

a. From 8 a.m. on October 5, 2015 through 4 a.m. on October 9, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

b. From 4 a.m. on October 9, 2015 through 8 a.m. on October 12, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

c. From 8 a.m. on October 12, 2015 through 4 a.m. on October 16, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

d. From 4 a.m. on October 16, 2015 through 8 a.m. on October 19, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

e. From 8 a.m. on October 19, 2015 trough 4 a.m. on October 23, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

f. From 4 a.m. on October 23, 2015 through 8 a.m. on October 26, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

g. From 8 a.m. on October 26, 2015 through 4 a.m. on October 30, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

h. From 4 a.m. on October 30, 2015 through 8 a.m. on November 2, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

i. From 8 a.m. on November 2, 2015 through 4 a.m. on November 6, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

j. From 4 a.m. on November 6, 2015 through 8 a.m. on November 9, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

k. From 8 a.m. on November 9, 2015 through 4 a.m. on November 13, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

l. From 4 a.m. on November 13, 2015 through 8 a.m. on November 16, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

m. From 8 a.m. on November 16, 2015 through 4 a.m. on November 20, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

n. From 4 a.m. on November 20, 2015 through 8 a.m. on November 23, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

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

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

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

Dated: August 19, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-21371 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0807] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Newark, NJ 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 Lehigh Valley Drawbridge, across Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to replace bridge timbers and miter rails. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for 10 hours for two days.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 13, 2015 and from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 14, 2015, with a rain date on September 20, 2015 from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0807] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, contact Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Lehigh Valley Drawbridge, mile 4.3, across Newark Bay has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.5.

The waterway has commercial oil barge traffic of various sizes and recreational vessels.

Consolidated Rail Corporation requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential maintenance repairs.

Under this temporary deviation, the Lehigh Valley Drawbridge will operate according to the schedule below:

a. From 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 13, 2015 the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

b. From 7 a.m. through 5 p.m., on September 14, 2015 the bridge will not open for marine traffic.

c. Should a rain date be necessary, from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 20, 2015 the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

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

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

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

Dated: August 19, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-21369 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0704] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River MM 180.0 to 180.5; St. Louis, MO AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Upper Mississippi River, surface to bottom, between mile 180.0 and 180.5. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and property from potential damage and safety hazards during Lumiere Place Fireworks displays. During the periods of enforcement, no vessels may be located within the Coast Guard safety zone. Entry into this Coast Guard safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0704. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR S.M. Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (314) 269-2332, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior 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. This event was originally scheduled to occur between July 2 and 4, 2015. However, due to high water, the event was rescheduled. The Coast Guard did not receive notice of the new event date until July 17, 2015 and could not complete the full notice and comment process prior to the date of the event. However, due to the potential hazards associated with fireworks displays, a safety zone is required to protect persons and property on the waterway during the displays. Completing the notice and comment period is impracticable because it would unnecessarily delay this rule and the immediate safety measures it provides. Additionally, delaying the effective date for this safety zone would be contrary to public interest.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing a full 30 days notice would be impracticable and would unnecessarily delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date would also be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect persons and property from potential hazards associated with fireworks displays over or on the Upper Mississippi River.

B. Basis and Purpose

A fireworks display is scheduled for August 29, 2015. This display will feature fireworks being launched from a barge located in the navigable channel between miles 180.0 and 180.5 on the Upper Mississippi River in the St. Louis Harbor. The Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to keep persons and property clear of any potential hazards associated with the launching of fireworks on or over the waterway.

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; Department of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define safety zones.

The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary safety zone to provide protection for persons and property, including spectators, commercial and recreational vessels, and others that may be in the area during the noticed fireworks display times from the hazards associated with the fireworks display on and over the waterway.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 29, 2015, for the Lumiere Place fireworks display. The fireworks will be launched from a barge located within the navigational channel and the safety zone will include all waters between Upper Mississippi River miles 180.0 and 180.5. The Coast Guard will enforce the temporary safety zone and may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. During the periods of enforcement, no vessels may transit into, through, or remain within this Coast Guard safety zone. Deviation from this safety zone may be requested by contacting the COTP Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative. Deviations will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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. This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced for a limited time period. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative. Based on the location, limited safety zone size, and short duration of the enforcement period, this rule does not pose a significant regulatory impact. Additionally, notice of this safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate. Deviation from this rule may be requested from the COTP Sector Upper Mississippi River and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The 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 safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only one hour. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the COTP. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone to protect persons and property from potential hazards associated with the scheduled Lumiere Place Fireworks display taking place on or over the Upper Mississippi River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Temporary § 165.T08-0540 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0540 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River between MM 180.0 and 180.5; St. Louis, MN.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Upper Mississippi River between MM 180.0 and 180.5, St. Louis, MO, extending the entire width of the river.

(b) Effective dates. This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 29, 2015.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, movement within, or departure from this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into, departure from, or movement within a regulated area must request permission from the COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River at (314) 269-2332.

(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instruction of the COTP Upper Mississippi River and designated on-scene personnel.

(d) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate of the enforcement period for each safety zone as well as any changes in the planned and published dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: August 13, 2015. M.L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2015-21373 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9933-09-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Missouri. This final action will approve Missouri's SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri. EPA proposed approval of this plan on June 1, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes Missouri's SIP satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) identified in EPA's 2008 Final Rule and will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS in the Buick/Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.

In this action, EPA is also finalizing its approval of a revision to the Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri regulation to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The amendment revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to the Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area. Approval of this rule ensures consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures Federal enforceability of the revised state rule.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Doolan, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

In this document, EPA is granting final approval of Missouri's SIP for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Buick/Viburnum Trend. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final approval to portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, “Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations”. This revision pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the primary source of lead emissions in the Buick/Viburnum Trend nonattainment area. EPA's proposal containing the background information for this action can be found at 80 FR 30965, June 1, 2015.

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

The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of the docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including Section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. EPA's Response to Comments

The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened June 1, 2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on July 1, 2015. During this period, EPA received one comment letter from the Doe Run Resource Recycling Division dated July 1, 2015. The comment letter and EPA's responses are summarized below.

Comment 1: The commenter states that in the June 1, 2015, proposed approval that the nomenclature for the Buick/Viburnum Trend nonattainment area is inconsistent. Doe Run requests that the term “Buick/Viburnum Trend” be used throughout. Doe Run also states that the secondary lead smelter nomenclature is incorrectly stated as “the Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF)” and requests EPA to correct the nomenclature to use “The Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF)” throughout.

Response 1: This comment recommends typographical corrections to the proposed rule that EPA has not relied upon in its decision making for this final action, and EPA is therefore not changing its final action based on this comment.

Comment 2: Doe Run states that the heading for section V.A.1. in the proposal is titled “BRRF Process Description,” but that it contains both the BRRF process description and a discussion of the mine activities. Doe Run requests that the section be retitled as “Buick/Viburnum Trend Process Description.”

Response 2: See Response 1.

Comment 3: Doe Run notes that section V.A.1. states “BRRF operates as a secondary smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement projects.” Doe Run requests that the statement be revised to more accurately reflect the facility operations by stating that “BRRF operates as a secondary lead smelter of lead, utilizing lead-containing materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, lead-based paint chips from lead abatement projects, and other lead bearing materials.”

Response 3: EPA notes that the process information provided in section V of the proposal was reproduced from Missouri's attainment SIP which was made available for a 30-day public comment period before the document was submitted to EPA. EPA appreciates this comment as it clarifies process-related information. However, this comment does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this comment.

Comment 4: Doe Run notes that in the first paragraph of section V.A.1., EPA states that “Crushed and concentrated lead containing ore was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the ore gets shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.” Doe Run requests this statement to instead read, “The processed ore, called lead concentrate was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the lead concentrate is currently shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.”

Response 4: Please see Response 3.

Comment 5: Doe Run requests that EPA revise the third paragraph of section V.A.1. from “BRRF's production is limited to 175,000 tons of total lead production each year . . .” to “175,000 tons of total refined lead production per year . . .”

Response 5: EPA disagrees. Section V.A.1. refers to the lead production limit in Missouri regulation 10 Code of State Regulation (CSR) 10-6.120, which states that “This installation [BRRF] shall limit total lead production to one hundred seventy-five thousand (175,000) tons per year.” 10 CSR 10-6.120 does not make a distinction between total lead production and total refined lead production.

Comment 6: In paragraph three of section V.A.1., EPA states that “Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker until processed in a shredder.” Doe Run requests that the statement read: “Spent batteries are stored in the containerized storage area until processed in the battery shredder.”

Response 6: Please see Response 3.

Comment 7: In section V.A.1., EPA states that “The batteries further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal parts are separated from the plastic and other debris.” Doe Run requests that this statement be revised as follows: “The batteries further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal parts are separated from the plastic and other materials.” Doe Run also requests EPA to change “The plastic and other debris are skimmed off and sent to recycling facilities” to “The plastic is skimmed off and sent to recycling facilities.”

Response 7: Please see Response 3.

Comment 8: In section V.A.1, the fifth paragraph states that “The lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and neutralized with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate . . .” Doe Run requests that this statement be revised to read: “The lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press . . .”

Response 8: Please see Response 3.

Comment 9: Regarding the first paragraph in section V.A.2, Doe Run disagrees with EPA's statement that the annual lead emissions from the Casteel Mine and the K & D Crushing Operations are “significant” to the total emissions of 18.34 tons per year. Doe Run further requests a change in EPA's statement from “processing of lead containing rock until it becomes wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers,” to “processing of lead containing rock to produce lead concentrate to be shipped to customers.”

Response 9: The commenter makes two separate comments in its “Ninth” comment per the progression of its comment letter. For consistency in numbering, EPA is also addressing these comments together.

Regarding Doe Run's comment that the Casteel Mine and the K & D Crushing Operations are not “significant” to the total emissions of 18.34 tons per year, EPA disagrees. In Section 3, Emissions Inventory, of Missouri's attainment SIP, four facilities, including the Casteel Mine and K & D Crushing, are listed that reported more than 0.01 tpy lead for inventory years 2009 through 2011. Missouri has determined that these facilities are significant and required modeling in order to determine their impacts at the monitor. This comment does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this comment.

As summarized above, Doe Run has commented on the wording of the third sentence in the first paragraph of section V.A.2. Please see Response 1.

Comment 10: In the third paragraph of section V.A.2, EPA states that “At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining faces to a central crusher where it is crushed . . .” Doe Run requests this sentence to be revised to state, “At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining faces to an underground central crusher where it is crushed . . .”

Additionally, in this same paragraph, EPA states that “After being crushed aboveground to less than 5/8-inch in size, the ore subjected to wet milling and grinding with rods and ball mills . . .” Doe Run has requested the word “is” to be inserted between “ore” and “subjected.”

Response 10: Please see Response 1.

Comment 11: In the fourth paragraph of section V.A.2., EPA states “As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations smelting operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas to primary lead smelting operations or other customers.” Doe Run requests this sentence be revised to state “As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased smelting operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas to customers' primary lead smelting operations or other customers.”

Response 11: Please see Response 1.

Comment 12: Doe Run commented that “mg/m3” had been incorrectly used in the proposal instead of “µg/m3” throughout the document.

Response 12: EPA checked the Federal Register proposed rule at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223-0001 and found that the correct units, µg/m3, were used. No change is necessary.

Comment 13: Section V.D.f. states that “By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process gases as they exit the pulse-jet baghouse . . .” Doe Run comments that this statement does not accurately reflect the language of the Consent Decree and it should read “By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process the exit gas stream before routing reverberatory furnace process to the main stack.”

Response 13: EPA agrees but notes that the requirement is not in the Consent Decree but rather is found in paragraph V, item 6.F. of the 2013 Consent Judgment (appendix M of the attainment SIP). As stated in the proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief discussion of the control measures. This comment further describes those control measures, but does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this comment.

Comment 14: Doe Run comments that section V.D.i. references item a.; however, it should reference item b.

Response 14: EPA agrees. EPA notes that Section 5.1, Consent Judgment Measures, of Missouri's attainment SIP also references item A. However, as depicted in the process flow diagram on page A-7 in Appendix A of Missouri's attainment SIP, for the reverberatory furnace, EPA notes that Doe Run is correct; the Dry Scrubber Baghouse CD37 follows the exit gases from the reverberatory furnace and is not part of the South Refinery described in item a. (depicted on page A-9 of Missouri's attainment SIP). This comment does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this comment.

Comment 15: Section V.D.j. states that “By October 31, 2014, install “batwing” style ventilation covers to improve . . .” Doe Run requests that this language be revised to state “By October 31, 2014, install “batwing” style ventilation covers, or covers with equivalent or better capture efficiency to improve . . .”

Response 15: As stated in the proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief discussion of the control measures. This comment further describes those control measures, but does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this comment.

Comment 16: The fourth paragraph of section V. E. refers to the “mines and mills.” The statement should be revised to refer specifically to the “Buick Mine and Mill and the Casteel Mine.”

Response 16: Please see Response 1.

Comment 17: In section V.H.a., EPA states that the negative pressure requirement is in “inches Hg.” Doe Run comments that the correct units are “mm Hg.”

Response 17: Please see Response 1.

Comment 18: Doe Run requests EPA to refer in the first paragraph of section VI.B.to the limits of Missouri regulation 10-6.120 as “175,000 tons of refined lead per year.” Also, Doe Run comments that in section VI.B. the proposal should consistently refer to “lead” rather than “Pb.”

Response 18: With regard to 10 CSR 10-6.120, please see Response 5. With regard to the use the words “lead” and “Pb,” interchangeably, please see Response 1.

Comment 19: In the third paragraph of section VI.B., EPA states that “The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are 176,482 tons of Pb produced per year.” Doe Run requests that this sentence be revised to state “The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are based on 176,482 tons of refined lead produced per year.”

Response 19: EPA agrees that the sentence should indicate that the “modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are based on 176,482 tons of lead produced per year. As discussed above in Responses 5 and 18, the language “refined” is not found in the Missouri regulation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve Missouri's SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead NAAQS nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final approval to portions of a revision to the State of Missouri CSR 10-6.120, “Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations”.

Incorporation by Reference

In this action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of Paragraph 10-6.120 (3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions limit for BRRF) described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

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).

This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

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 proposed rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.

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 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 future rule or action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: August 18, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52. 1320 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the entry for Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and the table in paragraph (d) by adding entry (29) to read as follows:
§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.120 Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations 3/30/09 8/28/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation] Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision Pertaining to Limitations of Lead Emissions from Specific Installations, have not been approved as a part of the SIP.
  • The requirement to limit main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 gr/dscf lead in Paragraph (3)(B)2 has not been approved as a part of the SIP.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders Name of source Order/permit number State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * (29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility Consent Judgment 13IR-CC00016 7/29/13 8/28/15 [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2015-21199 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689; FRL-9933-29—Region 5] Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Michigan 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). On March 31, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689. The comment period closed on June 1, 2015. EPA received no comments on the proposed rule. EPA has decided that the changes to Michigan's program satisfy all requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization, and EPA is authorizing those changes to Michigan's authorized hazardous waste program in this final rule.

    DATES:

    Final authorization for the changes to the hazardous waste program in Michigan will be effective at 1 p.m. EST on August 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index under Docket Identification No. EPA-2014-R05-RCRA-2014-0689. Although listed in the index, some of the 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 at regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following addresses, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone (312) 886-4179; or Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact: Ronda Blayer, telephone (517) 284-6555.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Judith Greenberg, U.S. EPA, Region 5, Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Mail Code LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, email: [email protected], phone number (312) 886-4179.

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

    States which have received final authorization from 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 EPA to authorize the 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 EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

    B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    EPA has made a final determination that Michigan's revisions to its authorized hazardous waste management program meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization. Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revised State of Michigan hazardous waste management program, as described in the Attorney General's Statement in the June 2014 authorization revision application, and as discussed in section E of this rule. Michigan has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program covered by its revised program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Michigan, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

    C. What has Michigan previously been authorized for?

    Michigan's hazardous waste management program received final authorization effective on October 16, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805, October 16, 1986). Subsequently, EPA authorized revisions to the State's program effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608, November 24, 1989); January 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517, January 24, 1991); November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244, October 1, 1993); January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095, January 13, 1995); April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742, February 8, 1996); November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775, November 14, 1997); June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111, March 2, 1999); July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49617, July 31, 2002); March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12141, March 9, 2006); January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077, January 7, 2008); and March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345, March 2, 2010).

    D. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Michigan subject to RCRA has to comply with the authorized state requirements in lieu of the corresponding federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA, and those authorized requirements will be federally enforceable. Additionally, such persons must comply with any applicable federal requirements, such as, for example, HSWA requirements issued by EPA for which the state has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized state-issued requirements. Michigan continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, which include, among others, authority to:

    • Perform 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 approving these revisions does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan is authorized are already effective under state law and are not changed by EPA's final action.

    E. What changes are we authorizing with today's action?

    This final rule addresses a program revision application that Michigan submitted to EPA in June 2014, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking authorization of changes to the state program. On March 31, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule (80 FR 17021) stating the Agency's intent to grant final authorization for revisions to Michigan's hazardous waste management program. The public comment period on this proposed rule ended on June 1, 2015. EPA received no comments during the public comment period.

    EPA has determined that Michigan's changes to its program satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. With this final action, EPA authorizes Michigan for the following federal rules (a table with a list of the State analogs is provided in the March 31, 2015, proposed rule) and the following state-initiated changes:

    • NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments, 73 FR 18970, April 8, 2008, Checklist 217.1

    1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice; EPA publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development of their authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.

    • F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes, June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756, Checklist 218.

    • Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, December 1, 2008, 73 FR 72912, Checklist 220.

    • OECD Requirements: Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236, Checklist 222.

    • Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule, as amended, March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989; and June 4, 2010, 75 FR 31716, Checklist 223.

    • Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, December 17, 2010, 75 FR 78918, Checklist 225.

    • Corrections to the Academic Generator Standards, December 20, 2010, 75 FR 79304, Checklist 226.

    • Revisions of the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes, June 13, 2011, 75 FR 34147, Checklist 227.

    • Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications, April 13, 2012, 77 FR 22229, Checklist 228.

    • Equivalent state-initiated changes:

    Michigan administrative rules R 299.9102 (definition of “construction permit” removed), R 299.9106(e) (definition of “operating license” modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 299.9501 (except second sentence only of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R 299.9524, R 299.9603, R 299.9604(2), R 299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 299.9612, R 299.9615, R 299.9616, R 299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R 299.9707, R 299.9708, R 299.9808, and R 299.9821, effective November 5, 2013.

    F. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?

    The most significant differences between the state rules we are authorizing and their analogous federal rules are summarized below. It should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need to comply.

    EPA has found that aspects of the Michigan program are more stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent requirements are part of the federally enforceable RCRA program authorized by the EPA and must be complied with in addition to the state requirements which track the minimum federal requirements. These more stringent requirements are found at:

    Michigan's rules at (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):

    R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR §§ 265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193, 265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules include provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to 40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental and human health standards generally.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the State rules require tank systems to also comply with Michigan 1941 Act 207 standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55 standards (which address air pollution).

    Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR 262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, Tables 1 and 2.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent, since the State rules require (1) timely notification of an exceedance of a groundwater/surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of Act 451; and (2) implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.

    Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State adopts updated versions of the “Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.”

    EPA has also found that aspects of Michigan's revised program are broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code): R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R 299.9507, as amended effective November 5, 2013.

    The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5, 2013: R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R 299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.

    EPA does not authorize States to administer federal import and export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Although 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 still required to adopt the federal import and export provisions to maintain their equivalency with the federal program. The State amended the following state import and export rules to include the federal rule on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010): R 299.9301(7); R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4); R 299.9312(1) and (2); R 299.9401(5); R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9); R 299.9605(1) and (4); R 299.9608(1), (4) and (8); R 299.9804(7) and (8); and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) and (p) and (2).

    G. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?

    Michigan will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of the final authorization until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed above after the effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Michigan is not yet authorized.

    H. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Michigan?

    Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian Country within the State, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:

    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within the State of Michigan;

    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, authorizing Michigan for these revisions does not affect Indian Country in Michigan. EPA continues to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian Country. It is EPA's long-standing position that the term “Indian lands” used in past Michigan hazardous waste approvals is synonymous with the term “Indian Country.” Washington Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and 258.2.

    I. What is codification and is EPA codifying Michigan's hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise a state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Michigan's rules, up to and including those revised October 19, 1991, have previously been codified through incorporation-by-reference effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart X, for the codification of Michigan's program changes until a later date.

    J. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by state law (see Supplementary Information, Section A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

    1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).

    2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e., 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).

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or 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).

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

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

    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply to this rule.

    10. Executive Order 12988

    As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

    11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings

    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.

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

    Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing state rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    13. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 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 10, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21385 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5717-02] RIN 0648-BE81 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of adjusted 2015 Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS hereby modifies the baseline annual U.S. quota and subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT). Specifically for 2015, NMFS augments the Reserve category quota with available underharvest of the 2014 adjusted U.S. BFT quota and also recalculates the Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas that were announced earlier this year (consistent with the Amendment 7 annual reallocation process) to reflect the increased U.S. quota. Furthermore, NMFS makes minor modifications to the regulations regarding Atlantic tunas purse seine auxiliary vessel activity under the “transfer at sea” provisions. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    DATES:

    Effective September 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Supporting documents such as the Environmental Assessments and Fishery Management Plans described below may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. These documents also are available upon request from Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale at the telephone number below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States implements binding ICCAT recommendations. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Background

    Background information about the need to modify the U.S. BFT base quota and the subquotas for all domestic fishing categories, as well as the regulatory text regarding Atlantic tunas purse seine auxiliary vessel activity under the “transfer at sea” provisions, were provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR 33467, June 12, 2015) and most of that information is not repeated here.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In this final rule, NMFS is changing text at § 635.27(a)(4)(ii), to reflect the equal allocation of the baseline Purse Seine category quota that is finalized in this action among the five individual Purse Seine category participants. NMFS inadvertently omitted this calculation in the regulatory text for the proposed rule. Specifically, in the proposed rule, NMFS proposed updating the baseline Purse Seine quota to 184.3 mt (§ 635.27(a)(4)(i)) to reflect the increased U.S. quota. However, NMFS did not carry this change through to the codified text in § 635.27(a)(4)(ii) to reflect the division of that Purse Seine category quota equally among the five individual Purse Seine fishery participants. The existing regulatory text specifies that annually, NMFS will make equal allocations of the baseline Purse Seine category quota described under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of the section to individual Purse Seine participants. To reflect the increase in the baseline Purse Seine category quota to 184.3 mt for each Purse Seine category participant, NMFS is updating the amount in the regulatory text at § 635.27(a)(4)(ii) to 36.9 mt (i.e., 184.3 mt/5 = 36.9 mt each). Because the change in the final rule simply reflects a mathematical function of the amount in § 635.27(a)(4)(i) and corrects the now-outdated number for the individual Purse Seine participants in § 635.27(a)(4)(ii) and does not alter the formula used or substance of the proposed rule, NMFS has determined that it is appropriate to make this change in this final rule.

    2014 ICCAT Recommendation

    At its November 2014 meeting, ICCAT adopted a western Atlantic BFT TAC of 2,000 mt annually for 2015 and 2016 after considering the results of the 2014 BFT stock assessment and following negotiations among Contracting Parties (ICCAT Recommendation 14-05). This TAC, which is an increase from the 1,750-mt TAC that has applied annually since 2011, is consistent with scientific advice from the 2014 stock assessment, which indicated that annual catches of less than 2,250 mt would have a 50-percent probability of allowing the spawning stock biomass to be at or above its 2013 level by 2019 under either recruitment scenario, and that annual catches of 2,000 mt or less would continue to allow stock growth under both the low and high recruitment scenarios for the remainder of the rebuilding program. All TAC, quota, and weight information discussed in this notice are whole weight amounts.

    For 2015 and 2016, the ICCAT Recommendation also makes the following allocations from the western BFT 2,000-mt TAC for bycatch related to directed longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED): 15 mt for Canada and 25 mt for the United States. Following subtraction of these allocations from the TAC, the recommendation allocates the remainder to the United States (54.02 percent), Canada (22.32 percent) Japan (17.64 percent), Mexico (5.56 percent), UK (0.23 percent), and France (0.23 percent). For the United States, 54.02 percent of the remaining 1,960 mt is 1,058.79 mt annually for 2015 and 2016. This represents an increase of approximately 135 mt (approximately 14 percent) from the U.S. baseline BFT quota that applied annually for 2011 through 2014. Thus, the annual total U.S. quota, including the 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the NED, is 1,083.79 mt.

    As a method for limiting fishing mortality on juvenile BFT, ICCAT continued to recommend a tolerance limit on the annual harvest of BFT measuring less than 115 cm (straight fork length) to no more than 10 percent by weight of a Contracting Party's total BFT quota over the 2015 and 2016 fishing periods. The United States implements this provision by limiting the harvest of school BFT (measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (68.5 to less than 119 cm curved fork length)) as appropriate to not exceed the 10-percent limit over the two-year period.

    Domestic Allocations and Quotas

    The table below shows the final baseline quotas and subquotas that result from applying the process established in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 7) to the higher U.S. BFT quota that ICCAT recommended in 2014. These quotas are codified at § 635.27(a) and will remain in effect until changed (for instance, if any new ICCAT western BFT TAC recommendation is adopted). Because ICCAT adopted TACs for 2015 and 2016 in Recommendation 14-05, NMFS currently anticipates that these annual base quotas would be in effect through 2016, but they will remain in place unless and until a new TAC is adopted by ICCAT.

    Table 1—Final Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (BFT) Annual Baseline Quotas [In metric tons] Category Annual baseline quotas and subquotas Quota Subquotas General 466.7 January-March 1 24.7 June-August 233.3 September 123.7 October-November 60.7 December 24.3 Harpoon 38.6 School 108.4 Longline 148.3 Reserve 20.1 Trap 1.0 North of 39°18′ N. lat 41.7 Purse Seine 2 184.3 South of 39°18′ N. lat 46.6 Angling 195.2 Large School/Small Medium 82.3 North of 39°18′ N. lat 38.9 South of 39°18′ N. lat 43.5 Trophy 4.5 North of 39°18′ N. lat 1.5 South of 39°18′ N. lat 1.5 Gulf of Mexico 1.5 Reserve 2 24.8 U.S. Baseline BFT Quota 3 1,058.9 Total U.S. Quota, including 25 mt for NED (Longline) 3 1,083.9 1 January 1 through the effective date of a closure notice filed by NMFS announcing that the January subquota is reached or projected to be reached, or through March 31, whichever comes first. 2 Baseline amount shown. Does not reflect the annual adjustment process (for the Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas) adopted in Amendment 7, discussed below. 3 Totals subject to rounding error.

    The proposed rule described how Amendment 7 also changed the way that NMFS adjusts the U.S. annual quota for any previous year's underharvest. Rather than publishing proposed and final quota specifications annually to adjust the quota for the underharvest as NMFS has in the past, NMFS will automatically augment the Reserve category quota to the extent that underharvest from the previous year is available. Such adjustment will be consistent with ICCAT limits and will be calculated when complete BFT catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. Consistent with the quota regulations, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota pursuant to regulatory determination criteria described at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8), or for scientific research.

    In the proposed rule, NMFS stated that the preliminary 2014 landings and dead discard estimate (i.e., using the 160.6-mt total of the 2013 estimated longline dead discards (156.4 mt) and the observed 2014 purse seine dead discards (4.2 mt) as a proxy for estimated 2014 dead discards) indicated an underharvest of approximately 218 mt. The preliminary 2014 pelagic longline dead discard estimate of 138.8 mt is now available from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Adding the 2014 observed dead discards of 4.2 mt for the purse seine fishery, the best available annual estimate of U.S. dead discards that could be expected in 2015 is now 143 mt. As anticipated and explained to the public at the proposed rule stage, NMFS is using the updated total in this final rule because it is the best available and most complete information NMFS has regarding dead discards. Based on data available as of July 7, 2015, BFT landings in 2014 totaled 667.3 mt. Adding the 143-mt estimate of dead discards results in a preliminary 2014 total catch of 810.3 mt, which is 233.3 mt less than the amount of quota (inclusive of dead discards) allowed under ICCAT Recommendation 13-09 (i.e., 948.7 mt plus 94.9 mt of 2013 underharvest carried forward to 2014, totaling 1,043.6 mt). Thus, the underharvest for 2014 is 233.3 mt. Per the 2014 ICCAT recommendation, only 10 percent of the total 2014 U.S. quota, or 94.9 mt, of that underharvest is carried forward to the 2015 fishing year. NMFS anticipated this amount of available underharvest to carry forward to 2015 in the proposed rule.

    Consistent with the process adopted in the Amendment 7 implementing regulations, NMFS calculated at the beginning of the year the quota available to individual Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category fishery participants for 2015 based on BFT catch (landings and dead discards) by those fishery participants in 2014. Based on that information, 87.4 mt of the baseline Purse Seine category quota of 159.1 mt was reallocated to the Reserve category for the 2015 fishing year. This process resulted in a total of 71.7 mt for Purse Seine fishery participants for 2015 and 108.8 mt (i.e., the base Reserve quota of 21.4 mt + 87.4 mt from the Purse Seine category) for the Reserve category (80 FR 7547, February 11, 2015). As discussed in the proposed rule, NMFS is first adjusting the 2015 Purse Seine category quota based on the ICCAT quota increase in this rule. As a result, the baseline Purse Seine category quota would increase by 25.2 mt to 184.3 mt. We then recalculate the amounts of quota available to individual Purse Seine fishery participants for 2015 applying the final baseline Purse Seine category (184.3 mt), and adjust the 2015 Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas as appropriate. This process results in a total of 82.9 mt for Purse Seine fishery participants in 2015, with the remainder (i.e., 184.3−82.9 = 101.4 mt) added to the Reserve category. Consistent with § 635.27(a)(4)(v)(C), NMFS will notify Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine fishery participants of the adjusted amount of quota available for their use in 2015 through the Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) electronic system and in writing.

    NMFS recently implemented two inseason transfers from the Reserve category for 2015 (34 mt to the Longline category and 40 mt to the Harpoon category), so the adjusted 2015 Reserve category quota as of publication of this action, including the allowable underharvest described above, would be 24.8−34−40 + 101.4 + 94.9 = 147.1 mt (80 FR 45098, July 29, 2015 and 80 FR 46516, August 5, 2015, respectively).

    Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine Auxiliary Vessel Activity

    Currently, HMS regulations specify that an owner or operator of a vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued may transfer large medium and giant BFT at sea from the net of the catching vessel to another vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued, provided the amount transferred does not cause the receiving vessel to exceed its currently authorized vessel allocation, including incidental catch limits. NMFS is making minor modifications to this regulatory text to clarify that this text was not meant to allow “transfer at sea,” which clearly is prohibited by ICCAT Recommendation 14-05, but is only meant to allow the routine, limited operations of an auxiliary vessel (i.e., a skiff) in assisting its associated purse seine vessel in catch operations for BFT. Such activities are not the type of activity meant to be prohibited by that Recommendation. This clarification is administrative, reflects current practice, and would have no environmental impacts or effects on current fishing operations.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received two written comments on the proposed rule, as well as two verbal comments through the public conference call/webinar. Few of the comments NMFS received focused specifically on the proposed rule. Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to all comments made specifically on the proposed rule during the comment period. The comments that were outside the scope of this rule are summarized under “Other Issues” below.

    Comment 1: One commenter suggested that, for conservation reasons and to allow the BFT stock to grow, NMFS should not increase the quota.

    Response: The western Atlantic BFT TAC, which includes the U.S. quota, is expected to allow for continued BFT stock growth under the both the low and high stock recruitment scenarios considered by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) and is consistent with ICCAT recommendations, ATCA, and domestic and international management objectives. Furthermore, NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

    Comment 2: Two commenters, representing fishing industry organizations, supported finalizing the rule as proposed but encouraged NMFS to increase BFT daily retention limits to allow more of the available quota to be harvested.

    Response: This rulemaking does not address daily retention limits. Adjusting daily retention limits occurs through separate inseason actions. NMFS has the authority to adjust the daily retention limits for the General, Harpoon, and Angling categories inseason, based on consideration of applicable regulatory determination criteria at § 635.27(a)(8). In adjusting Angling category limits, NMFS also considers the ICCAT tolerance limit of school BFT, which NMFS manages as appropriate to not exceed 10 percent (108.4 mt) of the annual U.S. BFT quota over each two-consecutive-year period (starting with 2015-2016). To date in 2015, NMFS has taken two inseason actions to increase the General and Angling category retention limit from the default levels (79 FR 77943, December 29, 2014, and 80 FR 27863, May 15, 2015). These actions may result in more of the General and Angling category subquotas to be harvested, relative to 2014, depending on the availability of BFT to the fisheries. NMFS also may adjust recreational effort controls inseason based on the best information available, but landings data are not available with the timing and frequency of commercial data (submitted within 24 hours to NMFS through required landings reports for each fish) such that adjustments in recreational fishing effort may need to be made in subsequent fishing years.

    Comment 3: One representative of an environmental non-governmental organization commented that the proposed rule is reasonable but expressed disappointment in ICCAT's recommendation to increase the TAC, given stock assessment uncertainties, and expressed concern that a quota increase could jeopardize rebuilding the stock by 2019.

    Response: The TAC recommended by ICCAT in 2014 followed the scientific advice of ICCAT's SCRS and considered the results of the 2014 stock assessment update while also taking into account remaining uncertainties. The SCRS indicated that annual catches of less than 2,250 mt would have a 50 percent probability of allowing the spawning stock biomass to be at or above its 2013 level by 2019 under either recruitment scenario, and that annual catches of 2,000 mt or less would continue to allow stock growth under both the low and high recruitment scenarios for the remainder of the rebuilding program. NMFS is committed to the sustainable, science-based management of BFT and is hopeful that the updated information and new data that will be incorporated into the next benchmark/full stock assessment will help to reduce some of the scientific uncertainty that the SCRS has identified for this stock.

    Other Issues

    In addition to the above comments specifically on the content of the proposed rule, other commenters raised issues that are outside the scope of this rule, particularly regarding Amendment 7 implementation. These comments included concern about the potential impact of quota transfers to the Longline category on IBQ shareholders and interest in how the reporting by commercial handgear vessel owners is proceeding during the initial implementation this year.

    Although outside the scope of this rulemaking, NMFS is noting here that it carefully considers the regulatory determination regarding inseason adjustments before making an inseason quota transfer. These criteria include the effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. Thus, NMFS would consider, among other things, how such a transfer would optimize fishing opportunity and contribute to full accounting for landings and dead discards, while still supporting the broader objectives of the fishery management plan. NMFS considered these and other requisite factors in its recently published inseason action transferring 34 mt of quota from the Reserve to the Longline category (80 FR 45098, July 29, 2015). NMFS will report on the progress of Amendment 7 implementation (including the IBQ program and vessel catch reporting) at upcoming meetings of the HMS Advisory Panel, and these presentations and transcripts will be publically accessible through the HMS Web site (see ADDRESSES).

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.

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

    In compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The full FRFA and analysis of economic and ecological impacts are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA follows.

    In compliance with section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the purpose of this rulemaking is, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, to analyze the impacts of the alternatives for implementing and allocating the ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota for 2015 and 2016; and to clarify the purse seine transfer at sea regulations for Atlantic tunas.

    Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires agencies to summarize significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, a summary of the agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. NMFS received a few comments on the proposed rule (80 FR 33467, June 12, 2015) during the comment period. A summary of these comments and the Agency's responses are included in Section 13 of the EA/RIR/FRFA and are included in this final rule. However, NMFS did not receive comment specifically on the IRFA.

    Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. This final rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit. In general, the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes. HMS Angling (recreational) category permit holders are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States including fish harvesters (79 FR 33647; June 12, 2014). A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a “small business” if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts (revenue) not in excess of $20.5 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing). NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System, a standard system used by business and government to classify business establishments into industries, according to their economic activity. The United States government developed NAICS to collect, analyze, and publish data about the economy. In addition, the SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity (NAICS code 487210, for-hire) as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.

    As described in the final rule to implement Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), the average annual gross revenue per active pelagic longline vessel was estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel during that time period was less than $1.4 million, well below the SBA size threshold of $20.5 million in combined annual receipts. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holders to be small entities. NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic Tunas category permit holders that potentially could earn more than $20.5 million in revenue annually. NMFS is also unaware of any charter/headboat businesses that could exceed the $7.5 million thresholds for those small entities. HMS Angling category permit holders are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders subject to this action to be small entities.

    This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic BFT fishery, i.e., to the over 27,000 vessels that held an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat, Atlantic HMS Angling, or an Atlantic Tunas permit as of October 2014. This final rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT fishery or fishing services for recreational anglers. As summarized in the 2014 SAFE Report for Atlantic HMS, there were 6,792 commercial Atlantic tunas or Atlantic HMS permits in 2014, as follows: 2,782 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 14 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 5 in the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category; 246 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category; 3 in the Atlantic Tunas Trap category; and 3,742 in the HMS Charter/Headboat category. In Amendment 7, authorized 136 Longline category permits for IBQ shares. This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permits and permit holders recently analyzed. No impacts are expected to occur from the clarification of the transfer at sea prohibition regulatory text.

    NMFS has determined that this action would not likely directly affect any small government jurisdictions, as that term is defined under the RFA.

    Under section 604(a)(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are required to describe any new reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

    Under section 604(a)(5) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any alternatives to the rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These alternatives and their impacts are discussed below. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives include: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.

    In order to meet the objectives of this rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, no alternatives are discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. Amendment 7 implemented criteria for determining the availability of quota for Purse Seine fishery category participants and IBQs for the Longline category. Both of these and the eligibility criteria for IBQs and access to the Cape Hatteras GRA for the Longline category can be considered individual performance standards. NMFS has not yet found a practical means of applying individual performance standards to the other quota categories while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category. In this rulemaking, NMFS analyzed two quota implementation alternatives: First, the status quo U.S. baseline quota and quotas established in 2011, and second, the preferred alternative to implement the U.S. quota to domestic categories in accordance with the 2014 ICCAT Recommendation, Amendment 7, and implementing regulations. NMFS considered a third quota alternative, which would use an allocation scheme other than the one recently established in Amendment 7 for the purpose of implementing BFT fishing category subquotas, but did not analyze this alternative further because it would not satisfy the purpose and need of the action (i.e., modifications to domestic management of BFT outside the limitations of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, and current ICCAT recommendations do not satisfy the purpose and need for the action).

    NMFS has estimated the average impact that establishing the increased baseline annual U.S. BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on each quota category and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2014 ICCAT recommendation increased the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota for each of 2015 and 2016 to 1,058.79 mt and provides 25 mt annually for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the NED. The baseline annual subquotas would be adjusted consistent with the process established in Amendment 7 (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), and these amounts would be codified.

    To calculate the average ex-vessel revenues under this action, NMFS first estimated potential category-wide revenues. The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under each of the subquotas (i.e., 2014 prices for the General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Longline/Trap categories). For comparison, in 2014, gross revenues were approximately $7.8 million, broken out by category as follows: General—$5.9 million, Harpoon—$544,778, Purse Seine—$391,607, Longline—$953,055, and Trap—$0. The baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $11 million, if finalized and fully utilized, broken out by category as follows: General category: $6.8 million (466.7 mt * $6.60/lb); Harpoon category: $611,851 (38.6 mt * $7.19/lb); Purse Seine category: $1.9 million (184.3 mt * $ 4.77/lb); Longline category: $1.7 million (148.3 mt * $5.22/lb); and Trap category: $11,508 (1.0 mt * $ 5.22/lb). This rule implements the recently adopted ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota and applies the allocations for each quota category as recently amended in the implementing regulations for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This action would be consistent with ATCA, under which the Secretary promulgates regulations as necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations.

    No affected entities would be expected to experience negative, direct economic impacts as a result of the preferred alternative. On the contrary, each of the quota categories would increase relative to the baseline quotas that applied in 2011 through 2014 and the quotas finalized in Amendment 7. To the extent that Purse Seine fishery participants and IBQ participants could receive additional quota as a result of Amendment 7-implemented allocation formulas being applied to increases in available Purse Seine and Longline category quota, those participants would receive varying increases, which would result in direct benefits from either increased fishing opportunities or quota leasing.

    To estimate potential average ex-vessel revenues that could result from this action, NMFS divides the potential annual gross revenues for the General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Trap category by the number of permit holders. For the Longline category, NMFS divides the potential annual gross revenues by the number of active vessels as defined in Amendment 7. This is an appropriate approach for BFT fisheries, in particular because available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price-per-pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data (particularly from non-Longline participants) do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice, etc.), so net revenue for each participant cannot be calculated. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the alternatives among all participants in each category.

    Success rates vary widely across participants in each category (due to extent of vessel effort and availability of commercial-sized BFT to participants where they fish) but for the sake of estimating potential revenues per vessel, category-wide revenues can be divided by the number of permitted vessels in each category. For the Longline fishery, the number of permits authorized for IBQ shares is used, and actual revenues would depend, in part, on each vessel's IBQ in 2015. Although HMS Charter/Headboat vessels may fish commercially under the General category quota and retention limits, because it is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT fishery, NMFS is estimating potential General category ex-vessel revenue changes using the number of General category vessels only.

    Estimated potential 2015 revenues on a per vessel basis, considering the number of permit holders listed above and the final subquotas, could be $2,441 for the General category; $43,703 for the Harpoon category; $387,618 for the Purse Seine category; $12,549 for the Longline category, using the 136 permits authorized for IBQ shares; and $3,836 for the Trap category. Thus, all of the entities affected by this rule are considered to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

    Consistent with Amendment 7 regulations, NMFS calculated the quota available to Purse Seine fishery participants for 2015 and then reallocated the remaining 87.4 mt of available Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category (80 FR 7547, February 11, 2015). NMFS has recalculated those amounts based on the final U.S. baseline BFT quota and subquotas in this rule, with an increase of 11.2 mt and 17.4 mt for the Purse Seine and Reserve categories, respectively.

    Because the directed commercial categories have underharvested their subquotas in recent years, the potential increases in ex-vessel revenues above may overestimate the probable economic impacts to those categories relative to recent conditions. Additionally, there has been substantial interannual variability in ex-vessel revenues per category in recent years due to recent changes in BFT availability and other factors.

    The modifications to the regulatory text concerning Atlantic tunas purse seine transfer at sea are intended to clarify the prohibition on transfer at sea. They apply to the five Purse Seine fishery participants only and are not expected to have significant economic impacts as they are administrative in nature, reflect current practice, and would not result in changes to Atlantic tunas purse seine operations.

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS has prepared a brochure summarizing fishery information and regulations for Atlantic tuna fisheries for 2015. This brochure also serves as the small entity compliance guide. Copies of the compliance guide are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: August 20, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:

    PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 635.27, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) introductory text, (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7)(i), and (a)(7)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 635.27 Quotas.

    (a) Bluefin tuna. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and with paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, NMFS may subtract the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, and make the remainder available to be retained, possessed, or landed by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota will be allocated among the General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories, as described in this section. Bluefin tuna quotas are specified in whole weight. The baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota is 1,058.79 mt, not including an additional annual 25-mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The bluefin quota for the quota categories is calculated through the following process. First, 68 mt is subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota and allocated to the Longline category quota. Second, the remaining quota is divided among the categories according to the following percentages: General—47.1 percent (466.7 mt); Angling—19.7 percent (195.2 mt), which includes the school bluefin tuna held in reserve as described under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; Harpoon—3.9 percent (38.6 mt); Purse Seine—18.6 percent (184.3 mt); Longline—8.1 percent (80.3 mt) plus the 68-mt allocation (i.e., 148.3 mt total not including the 25-mt allocation from paragraph (a)(3)); Trap—0.1 percent (1.0 mt); and Reserve—2.5 percent (24.8 mt). NMFS may make inseason and annual adjustments to quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this section, including quota adjustments as a result of the annual reallocation of Purse Seine quota described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section.

    (1) * * *

    (i) Catches from vessels for which General category Atlantic Tunas permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are counted against the General category quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold under the General category quota is 466.7 mt, and is apportioned as follows, unless modified as described under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:

    (A) January 1 through the effective date of a closure notice filed by NMFS announcing that the January subquota is reached, or projected to be reached under § 635.28(a)(1), or through March 31, whichever comes first—5.3 percent (24.7 mt);

    (B) June 1 through August 31—50 percent (233.3 mt);

    (C) September 1 through September 30—26.5 percent (123.7 mt);

    (D) October 1 through November 30—13 percent (60.7 mt); and

    (E) December 1 through December 31—5.2 percent (24.3 mt).

    (2) Angling category quota. In accordance with the framework procedures of the Consolidated HMS FMP, prior to each fishing year, or as early as feasible, NMFS will establish the Angling category daily retention limits. In accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the total amount of bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, and landed by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 195.2 mt. No more than 2.3 percent (4.5 mt) of the annual Angling category quota may be large medium or giant bluefin tuna. In addition, over each two-consecutive-year period (starting with 2015-2016), no more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may be school bluefin tuna (i.e., 108.4 mt). The Angling category quota includes the amount of school bluefin tuna held in reserve under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. The size class subquotas for bluefin tuna are further subdivided as follows:

    (i) After adjustment for the school bluefin tuna quota held in reserve (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent (46.6 mt) of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining school bluefin tuna Angling category quota (41.7 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.

    (ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent (43.5 mt) of the large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota (38.9 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.

    (iii) One third (1.5 mt) of the large medium and giant bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught retained, possessed, or landed, in each of the three following geographic areas: North of 39°18′ N. lat.; south of 39°18′ N. lat., and outside of the Gulf of Mexico; and in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c).

    (3) Longline category quota. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, discarded dead, or retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits is 148.3 mt. In addition, 25 mt shall be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area, and subject to the restrictions under § 635.15(b)(8).

    (4) Purse Seine category quota—(i) Baseline Purse Seine quota. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the baseline amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permits is 184.3 mt, unless adjusted as a result of inseason and/or annual adjustments to quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this section; or adjusted (prior to allocation to individual participants) based on the previous year's catch as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Annually, NMFS will make a determination when the Purse Seine fishery will start, based on variations in seasonal distribution, abundance or migration patterns of bluefin tuna, cumulative and projected landings in other commercial fishing categories, the potential for gear conflicts on the fishing grounds, or market impacts due to oversupply. NMFS will start the bluefin tuna purse seine season between June 1 and August 15, by filing an action with the Office of the Federal Register, and notifying the public. The Purse Seine category fishery closes on December 31 of each year.

    (ii) Allocation of bluefin quota to Purse Seine category participants. Annually, NMFS will make equal allocations of the baseline Purse Seine category quota described under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section to individual Purse Seine participants (i.e., 36.9 mt each), then make further determinations regarding the allocations per paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Allocations of individual bluefin quota to individual Purse Seine participants may only be transferred through leasing in accordance with procedures and requirements at § 635.15(c) and other requirements under this paragraph (a)(4).

    (5) Harpoon category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold by vessels that possess Harpoon category Atlantic Tunas permits is 38.6 mt. The Harpoon category fishery commences on June 1 of each year, and closes on November 15 of each year.

    (6) Trap category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Trap category Atlantic Tunas permits is 1.0 mt.

    (7) * * *

    (i) The total amount of bluefin tuna that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and research using quota or subquotas is 24.8 mt, which may be augmented by allowable underharvest from the previous year, or annual reallocation of Purse Seine category quota as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(8) through (10) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota.

    (ii) The total amount of school bluefin tuna that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research is 18.5 percent (20.1 mt) of the total school bluefin tuna Angling category quota as described under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This amount is in addition to the amounts specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to the Angling category.

    3. In § 635.29, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 635.29 Transfer at sea and transshipment.

    (c) An owner or operator of a vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued under § 635.4 may use an auxiliary vessel (i.e., a skiff) associated with the permitted vessel to assist in routine purse seine fishery operations, provided that the auxiliary vessel has not been issued an Atlantic Tunas or HMS vessel permit and functions only in an auxiliary capacity during routine purse seine operations (i.e., it conducts limited assistance activities such as assistance with purse seine deployment and removal of BFT from the purse seine). The auxiliary vessel may transfer large medium and giant Atlantic BFT to its associated purse seine vessel during routine purse seine operations, provided that the amount transferred does not cause the receiving vessel to exceed its currently authorized vessel allocation, including incidental catch limits.

    [FR Doc. 2015-21147 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 141021887-5172-02] RIN 0648-XE144 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; apportionment of reserves; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS apportions amounts of the non-specified reserve to the initial total allowable catch (ITAC) of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) northern rockfish, BSAI squids, Bering Sea (BS) Greenland turbot, and BS Pacific ocean perch in the BSAI management area. This action is necessary to allow the fisheries to continue operating. It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan for the BSAI management area.

    DATES:

    Effective August 27, 2015, through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time, December 31, 2015. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., Alaska local time, September 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2014-0134 by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to, http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0134, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the (BSAI) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2015 ITAC of BSAI northern rockfish was established as 2,763 metric tons (mt), the 2015 ITAC of BSAI squids was established as 340 mt, the 2015 ITAC of BS Greenland turbot was established as 2,081 mt, and the 2015 ITAC of BS Pacific ocean perch was established as 6,818 mt by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(3) the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has reviewed the most current available data and finds that the ITACs for BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI squids, BS Greenland turbot, and BS Pacific ocean perch need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve to promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources in the BSAI and allow fishing operations to continue.

    Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS apportions from the non-specified reserve of groundfish 3,500 mt to the BSAI northern rockfish ITAC, 1,630 mt to the BSAI squids ITAC, 105 mt to the BS Greenland turbot ITAC, and 1,203 mt to the BS Pacific ocean perch ITAC. These apportionments are consistent with § 679.20(b)(1)(i) and do not result in overfishing of any target species because the revised ITACs and total allowable catch (TAC) are equal to or less than the specifications of the acceptable biological catch in the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015).

    The harvest specification for the 2015 ITACs and TACs included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI are revised as follows: The ITAC and TAC is increased to 6,263 mt for BSAI northern rockfish and 1,970 mt for BSAI squids. The ITAC is increased to the full TAC of 2,448 mt for BS Greenland turbot, including 262 tons of Community Development Quota. And, the ITAC is increased to the full TAC of 8,021 mt for BS Pacific ocean perch.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the apportionment of the non-specified reserves of groundfish to the BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI squids, BS Greenland turbot, and BS Pacific ocean perch fisheries in the BSAI. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 21, 2015.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Under § 679.20(b)(3)(iii), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action (see ADDRESSES) until September 11, 2015.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21272 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 167 Friday, August 28, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048] RIN 1904-AD37 Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of data availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed a provisional analysis of the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from promulgating amended energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. At this time, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. Instead, this analysis will be used in support of the Appliance Standards Federal Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) central air conditioners and heat pumps working group, which has been established to negotiate potential proposed amended energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps standards and to discuss certain aspects of the proposed Federal test procedure. The analysis for this NODA is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=104. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis during the course of the working group meetings.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and other information regarding this NODA and its related analyses no later than December 31, 2015. See section IV, “Submission of Comments,” of this NODA for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any comments submitted must identify the NODA on Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AD37. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of this document (Submission of Comments).

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents in the docket, including public comments.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV, “Submission of Comments,” of this document. For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4563. Email: central air conditioners and heat [email protected]

    Mr. Eric Stas or 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) 5869507 or (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    For further information on how to review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Authority II. History of the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps A. Background B. Current Status III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE A. Engineering Analysis B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses C. National Impact Analysis D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis IV. Submission of Comments V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), which includes the residential central air conditioners and heat pumps that are the subject of this rulemaking.2 (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3))

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

    2 All referenced to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, included amendments to EPCA that established the original energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(1)-(2))

    EPCA, as amended, also requires DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend the energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)) More recently, EPCA was amended to require DOE to review the standards for each of its consumer products not later than every six years to determine whether such standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Under this “six-year-lookback” authority, DOE must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended standards for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. Id.

    EPCA provides criteria for prescribing amended energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. More specifically, DOE is required to consider standards that: (1) Achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified; and (2) result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B)) To determine whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE will, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the following seven factors:

    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of products subject to the standard; 2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products which are likely to result from the standard; 3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard; 4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard; 5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard; 6. The need for national energy conservation; and 7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

    EPCA also directs that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time that the standard is prescribed. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

    Before proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE will use to evaluate standards for the product at issue and the results of preliminary analyses DOE performed for the product. This notice announces the availability of the preliminary analysis of the economic impacts and energy savings of potential amended energy conservation standards.

    II. History of the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps A. Background

    As noted above, EPCA, as amended, established energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as requirements for DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemaking to determine whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(1)-(3)) The first cycle culminated in a final rule published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2004 (the August 2004 Rule), which prescribed energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps manufactured or imported on and after January 23, 2006. 69 FR 50997. DOE completed the second of the two rulemaking cycles by publishing a direct final rule on June 27, 2011 (2011 Direct Final Rule). 76 FR 37408. The 2011 Direct Final Rule (2011 DFR) amended standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2015.

    Pursuant to the EPCA's six-year review requirement under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), DOE must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose amended standards for residential air conditioners and heat pumps, or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended, by June 6, 2017 (i.e., the date six years after issuance of the last amended standards for these products). In furtherance of this process, DOE published a request for information (“the RFI”) regarding central air conditioners and heat pumps on November 5, 2014. 79 FR 65603. DOE published the RFI to solicit comments on whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioner and heat pump products. The RFI also described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated to use in order to evaluate energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps.

    B. Current Status

    The analyses described in this NODA were developed to support a potential energy conservation standard for central air conditioners and heat pumps. The Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) recently established a working group in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed amended energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps standards and to discuss certain aspects of the proposed Federal test procedure. 80 FR 40938 (July 14, 2015) The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for amended energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps and provide recommendations to DOE regarding certain aspects of the proposed test procedure. The working group consists of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards and amended test procedure, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues.

    To examine these issues, and others as necessary, DOE will provide to all parties in the negotiation data and an analytical framework complete and accurate enough to support their deliberations. DOE is publishing this analysis to inform a prospective negotiation.

    In this NODA, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE may revise the analyses presented in this NODA based on any new or updated information or data it obtains during the course of the negotiations. DOE encourages interested parties to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis.

    III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE

    DOE conducted provisional analyses of central air conditioners and heat pumps in the following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) consumer impacts (life-cycle cost and payback period); (3) national impacts (including energy savings); and (4) manufacturer impacts. The tools used in preparing these analyses and their respective results are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048. Each individual spreadsheet includes an introduction that provides an overview of the contents of the spreadsheet. These spreadsheets present the various inputs and outputs to the analysis and, where necessary, instructions. Brief descriptions of the provisional analyses and of the supporting spreadsheet tools are provided below.

    DOE also prepared a technical support document (TSD) containing a detailed written account of the provisional analyses and the results generated from these analyses, which are described for the four major anlyses below. The TSD is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.

    A. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels of central air conditioners and heat pumps. This relationship serves as the basis for calculations performed in the other analytical tools to estimate the costs and benefits to individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. The engineering analysis identifies representative baseline products, which is the starting point for analyzing technologies that provide energy efficiency improvements. “Baseline product” refers to a model or models having features and technologies typically found in minimally-efficient products currently available on the market and, for products already subject to energy conservation standards, a model that just meets the current standard. After identifying the baseline models, DOE estimated manufacturer selling prices by using a consistent methodology and pricing scheme that includes material costs and manufacturer markups.

    B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impact of potential standards on individual consumers, starting in the compliance year. The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing, and operating a central air conditioner or heat pump over the course of its lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the LCCs of products designed to meet possible energy conservation standards with the LCC of the product likely to be installed in the absence of standards. DOE determines the LCC by considering: (1) The total installed cost to the consumer (which consists of manufacturer selling price, distribution channel markups, installation costs, and sales taxes); (2) the range of annual energy consumption of central air conditioners and heat pumps as they are used in the field; (3) the operating and maintenance costs of central air conditioners and heat pumps (e.g., energy cost); (4) product lifetime; and (5) a discount rate that reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present-value terms.

    The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the increase in purchase price (including installation costs) of higher-efficiency central air conditioners and heat pumps through savings in the operating cost. PBP is calculated by dividing the incremental increase in installed cost of the higher-efficiency product, compared to the baseline product, by the annual savings in operating costs.

    For each considered standards case corresponding to each efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the no-standards case, which reflects the market in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, including market trends for products that exceed the current energy conservation standards.

    DOE developed nationally-representative household samples for central air conditioners and heat pumps from the 2009 residential energy consumption survey (RECS). DOE analyzed the net effect of potential amended central air conditioner and heat pump standards on consumers by calculating the LCC savings and PBP for each household by efficiency level. Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the consumer (purchase price, including sales tax where appropriate, plus installation cost), operating costs (energy expenses, repair costs, and maintenance costs), the lifetime of the product, and a discount rate. Inputs to the payback period calculation include the installed cost to the consumer and first-year operating costs.

    DOE performed the LCC and PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model combined with Crystal Ball 3 to account for uncertainty and variability among the input variables. Each Monte Carlo simulation consists of 10,000 LCC and PBP calculations using input values that are either sampled from probability distributions and household samples or characterized with single-point values. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-standards-case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency through amended energy conservation standards.

    3 Crystal Ball is a commercial software program used to conduct stochastic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A Monte Carlo simulation uses random sampling over many iterations of the simulation to obtain a probability distribution of results. Certain key inputs to the analysis are defined as probability distributions rather than single-point values.

    For each potential standard level, the primary outputs of the LCC and PBP analyses are: (1) Average LCC; (2) average PBPs; (3) average LCC savings relative to the no-new-standards case; and (4) the percentage of consumers that experience a net cost.

    C. National Impact Analysis

    The national impacts analysis (NIA) estimates the national energy savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential amended standards. DOE calculated NES and NPV for central air conditioners and heat pumps as the difference between a case without amended standards and each standards case.

    DOE calculated the national annual energy consumption for each case using the appropriate per-unit annual energy use data multiplied by the projected central air conditioner and heat pump shipments for each year. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined for the lifetime of central air conditioner or heat pumps shipped during a 30-year period assumed to start in the expected compliance year. The analysis period is 30 years, which is consistent with other rulemakings and sufficiently long to cover the expected life of the product. Energy savings include the full-fuel-cycle energy savings (i.e., the energy needed to extract, process, and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity from those fuel sources).

    To develop the national NPV of consumer benefits from potential energy conservation standards, DOE calculated projected annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs) and annual installation costs for the no-new-standards case and the standards cases. DOE calculated annual energy expenditures from annual energy consumption using forecasted energy prices (based on the Energy Information Administration's most recent Annual Energy Outlook) in each year. DOE calculated annual product expenditures by multiplying the price per unit times the projected shipments in each year.

    The aggregate difference each year between operating cost savings and increased installation costs is the net savings or net costs. DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. The national NPV is the sum over time of the discounted net savings each year. Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments projections, estimated product lifetimes, product installed costs and operating costs, product annual energy consumption, the no-new-standard-case efficiency projection, and discount rates. DOE estimates the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.4

    4 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-4, section E, Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs (2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html).

    D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    DOE performed a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the potential financial impact of potential amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of central air conditioners and heat pumps. The MIA relied on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model used to estimate changes in industry value as a result of amended energy conservation standards. The primary quantitative output of this model is the industry net present value (INPV), which DOE calculates as the sum of industry annual cash flows, discounted to the present day using an industry-specific weighted average cost of capital, or manufacturer discount rate. The GRIM estimates the impacts of more-stringent energy conservation standards on the industry by comparing changes in INPV between a no-new-standards case and standards cases.

    Key GRIM inputs include manufacturer production cost estimates from the Engineering Analysis and annual shipments forecast estimates from the National Impact Analysis. As part of the MIA, DOE also develops an analysis of industry financial parameters (e.g., average industry tax rate, working capital rate, research and development expense rate, depreciation rate) and estimates conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur in order to comply with amended standards.

    Additionally, DOE develops multiple manufacturer markup scenarios in order to capture uncertainty surrounding manufacturer pricing strategy following amended standards. For the central air conditioner and heat pump industry, DOE modeled three standards-case markup scenarios: (1) A preservation of baseline markup scenario; (2) a preservation of per-unit operating profit markup scenario; and (3) a tiered markup scenario. These scenarios result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.

    IV. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding all of the analyses described above, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this NODA. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and any other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.

    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form latter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this NODA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21321 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027] RIN 1904-AD31 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces an extension of the time period for submitting comments, data, and information concerning the notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial prerinse spray valves, published on July 9, 2015. The comment period is extended to September 22, 2015.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial prerinse spray valves, published on July 9, 2015 (80 FR 39486) is extended to September 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027 and/or regulation identifier number (RIN) 1904-AD31 in the subject line of the message. All comments should clearly identify the name, address, and, if appropriate, organization of the commenter. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, portable data format (PDF), or American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027 and/or RIN 1904-AD31, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Phone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. (Please note that comments sent by mail are often delayed and may be damaged by mail screening processes.)

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    All submissions received must include docket number EERE-2014-BT- STD-0027 and/or regulatory identification number (RIN) 1904- AD31.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include Federal Register notices, framework document, notice of proposed rulemaking, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials throughout the rulemaking process. The regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions about how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. The docket can be accessed by searching for docket number EERE- 2014-BT-STD-0027 on the regulations.gov Web site. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: [email protected]

    In the Office of General Counsel, contact Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 9, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a document in the Federal Register proposing amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. The document also announced a public meeting to receive comment about the proposed standards and associated analyses and results. 80 FR 39486. The document provided for the submission of written comments by September 8, 2015, and oral comments were also accepted at a public meeting held on July 28, 2015.

    The Plumbing Manufacturers International requested, by letter dated August 13, 2015, an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking, in view of the scope of the proposed rulemaking, technical nature, and amount of data requested.

    DOE has determined that an extension of the public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking is appropriate to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments for DOE's consideration. Thus, DOE is extending the comment period by 15 days. DOE will consider any comments received prior to September 23, 2015, to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21319 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0627; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-021-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), which would have applied to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM would have superseded AD 2011-24-06 and required revising the maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for reduced safe life limits on certain nose landing gear fittings. Since the NPRM was issued, we have received new data indicating that the airworthiness limitations contained in section 5 of the aircraft maintenance manual has been revised to include additional tasks and limitations. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.

    DATES:

    As of August 28, 2015, the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44469), is withdrawn.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0627; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD action, the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    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:

    Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44469). The NPRM would have superseded AD 2011-24-06, Amendment 39-16870 (76 FR 73477, November 29, 2011). The NPRM would have continued to require existing limitations and would have required revising the maintenance program to incorporate the following limitations:

    • Subject 05-10-15, “Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness Limitations,” of Chapter 05, “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,” of BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 105, dated July 15, 2011.

    • Subject 05-20-02, “Airframe Scheduled Maintenance—Landing/Calendar Life Extended,” of Chapter 05, “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,” of BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 105, dated July 15, 2011.

    • Subject 05-20-05, “Airframe Scheduled Maintenance—Life Extension Programme Landings Life Extended,” of Chapter 05, “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,” of BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 105, dated July 15, 2011.

    The NPRM was prompted by a determination that reduced safe life limits on certain nose landing gear NLG fittings were necessary. Analysis of these fittings showed the presence of forging indications in the flash line, which could reduce the life limits of these fittings. The proposed actions were intended to prevent fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    Actions Since NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2014), BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has revised Chapter 05, “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,” of the BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). Therefore, the NPRM proposal to incorporate new airworthiness limitations with reduced safe life limits on certain nose landing gear fittings contained in a previous issue of the AMM are no longer relevant.

    FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the changes to the AMM proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013) are no longer relevant and there is no benefit to proceeding with the publication of a final rule. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. The FAA is considering issuing a different rulemaking action to require implementation of the current revision of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Chapter 05, “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,” of the BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series AMM.

    Withdrawal of the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013) does not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

    Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2013-0627, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-021-AD, which was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44469).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 20, 2015. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21247 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. (AEC) replacement parts manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies marketed by Engine Components International Division (ECi). We subsequently issued an initial supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) that proposed to modify the schedule for removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, added that overhauled affected cylinder assemblies be removed within 80 hours, eliminated a reporting requirement, and removed a requirement for initial and repetitive inspections. This second SNPRM reopens the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on additional information added to the docket of this proposed rule. We are proposing this SNPRM to prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by September 28, 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    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-2012-0002; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Delegation Systems Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 817-222-5785; email: [email protected]

    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-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain AEC replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi. These assemblies are used on Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and all other CMI engine models approved for the use of models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48828). The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections, immediate replacement of cracked cylinder assemblies, and replacement of cylinder assemblies at reduced times-in-service (TIS) since new. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected cylinder assemblies into any engine.

    We subsequently issued an SNPRM which published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2015 (80 FR 1008). The SNPRM proposed a modified schedule for removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, added that overhauled affected cylinder assemblies be removed within 80 hours, eliminated a reporting requirement, and removed the requirement for initial and repetitive inspections.

    Actions Since Previous SNPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015), we received numerous additional comments on the proposed rule. After reviewing the comments, we decided to reopen the docket so that we could provide additional information to explain the rationale for this AD action. We also wanted to provide commenters with the opportunity to comment on this additional information. We added the following information to Docket No. FAA-2012-0002: (1) The risk analysis conducted by the FAA's Chief Scientific and Technical Adviser, Aircraft Safety Analysis; (2) a risk analysis using the Small Airplane Risk Analysis methods; (3) a June 2011, presentation by Airmotive Engineering to the FAA concerning its ECi cylinder assemblies; (4) a list of ECi cylinder assembly failure reports consisting of only those reports where both cylinder serial number and Time in Service are included in the reports; (5) a list of additional failures of ECi cylinder assemblies reported by a maintenance organization; (6) copies of the slides discussed with the NTSB on June 9, 2015 during the meeting with the NTSB to understand its comments to 2011-NE-42-AD, and (7) Airmotive Engineering Corporation Technical Report 1102-13, dated April 30, 2011.

    In addition, we met with National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) representatives on June 9, 2015, to clarify the NTSB's basis for its comments of FAA's actions in this proposed rule.

    We are taking this opportunity to respond to a limited number of comments. Specifically, we found that numerous commenters cited differences between the FAA's proposed action and the NTSB's recommendations in NTSB Safety Recommendation A-12-7. We will respond to remaining comments to the initial SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015) and to this second SNPRM when we issue the final rule.

    Comments to the Previous SNPRM Request To Provide Supporting Information

    Danbury Aerospace, Inc., and others in their comments to the SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015), requested that we provide additional information that supports this AD action.

    We agree. We added our risk analyses and other technical information, such as the list of cylinder failures noted above and ECi Technical Report 1102-13 that supports this proposed rule, to Docket No. FAA-2012-0002 to help commenters and the general public understand the need for this proposed rule.

    Request To Withdraw the SNPRM Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are Not Unsafe

    Several operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens asked that we withdraw the SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015) because the affected ECi cylinder assemblies have an equivalent, or lower, failure rate than that of cylinder assemblies manufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM).

    We disagree. We found that the failure rate for ECi cylinder assemblies is much higher than for OEM cylinder assemblies over the same period. Accident data confirms, that engines and airplanes may not always continue to operate safely with a separated cylinder and that separated cylinders have been the precipitating event in at least two fatal accidents. This accident data is included in the risk analyses that we uploaded to the docket (see NTSB Accident Identifiers NYC02FA178 and ERA11WA008, which are cited in these analyses). We did not withdraw this proposed rule.

    Request To Review Comparison of Failure Rate Between OEM and ECi Cylinder Assemblies

    The NTSB commented that the comparison between failure rates of OEM and ECi cylinder assemblies was not valid because the cylinder heads represented substantially different designs.

    We disagree that the comparison between OEM and ECi cylinder assemblies is not valid. The ECi PMA design was reverse engineered by ECi from earlier vintage OEM cylinders, and uses the same time between overhaul (TBO) as the OEM cylinders. Since these ECi cylinder assemblies are approved to the same TBO as the OEM cylinders, the ECi cylinders should have durability that is equivalent to the OEM cylinders. Our comparison of ECi cylinder assembly service history with the OEM cylinder assembly history showed that the rate of separation for the affected ECi cylinder assemblies is at least 32 times greater than that of OEM cylinder assemblies over the same period. We uploaded this data for commenter review. It may be viewed in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002. We did not change this proposed AD.

    Request To Revise Applicability

    The NTSB commented that it has not investigated any cases involving engines with cylinder assemblies ranging from serial number (S/N) 1 through S/N 1043. The NTSB indicated that cylinder assemblies in this S/N range should not be affected by the AD.

    We disagree. Cylinder assemblies with S/N 1 through S/N 1043 have the same design as noted in this SNPRM, exhibit the same unsafe condition, and therefore must be included in the applicability. We did not change this proposed AD.

    The NTSB also commented that AD 2004-08-10, which was issued on May 5, 2004, requires replacement before further flight of ECi cylinder assemblies ranging from S/N 1044 through S/N 7708 installed on CMI 520 and 550 series engines. According to AD 2004-08-10, ECi identified a manufacturing discrepancy that occurred between September 2002 and May 2003 affecting cylinder assemblies S/N 1044 through S/N 7708, which resulted in an over-hardened condition that would reduce the fatigue strength of the aluminum cylinder head. The NTSB commented, therefore, that cylinder assemblies S/N 1044 through S/N 7708 should not be included in the proposed AD.

    We disagree. AD 2004-08-10 does not apply to all cylinder assemblies S/N 1044 through S/N 7708; it applies only to cylinder assemblies having specific cast markings. Cylinder assemblies S/N 1004 through S/N 7708 have the same design as noted in this SNPRM, exhibit the same unsafe condition, and therefore must be included in the applicability. We did not change this proposed AD.

    The NTSB also commented that, based on its review of the additional seal band interference fit data provided by ECi, action is only required for 165 cylinder assemblies S/N 36210 through S/N 61176.

    We disagree. We have received reports of separations of cylinder assemblies S/N 36210 through S/N 61176 that were not among the 165 cylinders that ECi claimed may be at risk for separation due to insufficient head to barrel interference fit. We have uploaded information in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002 that identifies S/Ns of failed cylinder assemblies that were not among the 165 cylinder assemblies identified by ECi. We did not change this proposed AD.

    The NTSB commented that the applicability represented by the SNPRM—S/N 1 through S/N 61176—represents a much larger number of affected cylinder assemblies than is supported by its investigations.

    We disagree. ECi's next increase in the design interference fit was incorporated beginning with S/N 61177. Consequently, all cylinder assemblies S/N 1 through S/N 61176 are at risk for separation in the first thread due to insufficient interference fit. We, therefore, find that based on service failure data, identified in the docket as “U.S. DOT/FAA—04 ECi 520-550 Cylinder Separations,” and ECI's implementation of design improvements, this proposed AD must apply to cylinder assemblies S/N 1 through S/N 61176. We did not change this proposed AD.

    Request To Include Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    The NTSB commented that we should impose a repetitive inspection requirement for certain ECi cylinder assemblies and their removal once they reach the manufacturer's recommended TBO. This repetitive inspection requirement was part of the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013), but we removed it from the SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015).

    The NTSB observed that the FAA had published Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) NE-07-09R1, dated March 21, 2007, and approved ECi Mandatory Service Bulletin 06-2, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2006. Both of these documents emphasize the importance of conducting periodic inspections of ECi cylinder assemblies.

    We disagree. We have found, based on service experience since the publication of SAIB NE-07-09R1, that the inspection and tests are not reliable in detecting cracked cylinders and the cost associated with such ongoing tests outweighs the safety benefit. In addition, the crack propagation growth rate is unknown. As a result, we have received field reports of separated cylinders that occurred within the repetitive 50-hour compression test and leak check inspection intervals proposed by the NPRM. We did not change this proposed AD.

    The NTSB also noted that repetitive inspections are not perfect but are still effective in detecting cracks that have propagated through the cylinder wall. These inspections provide an added level of safety from the time of the issuance of the final rule AD until the required removal of the cylinder assembly.

    We disagree. We find that repetitive inspections until TBO are inconsistent with the serious hazard represented by cylinder assembly failures. See the “U.S. DOT/FAA-01 Risk Analysis White Paper” for 2011-NE-42-AD that we uploaded to the AD docket on June 23, 2015. Therefore, we are requiring removal of affected cylinder assemblies from service prior to TBO. We did not change this proposed AD.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM to allow the public the opportunity to comment on additional information we added to the docket of this proposed rule.

    Proposed Requirements of this SNPRM

    As proposed in the first SNPRM published on January 8, 2015 (80 FR 1008), this second SNPRM would require removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, including overhauled cylinder assemblies, according to a phased removal schedule.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 CMI models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550 reciprocating engines and all other CMI engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that about 18 hours would be required to replace all six cylinder assemblies during overhaul maintenance. We estimate the pro-rated value of the cost of replacement of six cylinder assemblies to be about $4,202 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to change all ECi cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

    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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    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): Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., formerly Continental): Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 28, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and to all other CMI engine models approved for the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 470 when modified by supplemental type certificate (STC), with Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement parts manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies, marketed by Engine Components International Division (hereinafter referred to as ECi), part number (P/N) AEC631397, with ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial number (S/N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple failure reports of cylinder head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Review the engine maintenance records to determine if any affected cylinder assemblies are installed.

    (2) If you cannot determine based on review of engine maintenance records if any affected cylinder assemblies are installed, comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.

    (3) If you do not have any of the affected ECi cylinder assemblies installed on your engine, no further action is required.

    (4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number Location

    (i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and Class number. The ECi cylinder assembly, P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is stamped on the bottom flange of the cylinder barrel. Guidance on the P/N and Class number description and location can be found in ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009.

    (ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly P/N when the cylinder assembly is installed on the engine, you may use the following alternative method of identification:

    (A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker box cover.

    (B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the cylinder head between the valve stems.

    (C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N. Affected cylinder assemblies have the cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast into the cylinder head between the valve stems.

    (D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.

    (iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured through 2008, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on the intake port boss two inches down from the top edge of the head.

    (iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured on or after January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped just below the top edge of the head on the exhaust port side.

    (5) Removal From Service

    (i) For any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service before reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new.

    (ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 680 operating hours TIS since new and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 320 operating hours TIS or within 1,160 operating hours TIS since new, whichever occurs first.

    (iii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 1,000 operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 160 operating hours or at next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first.

    (iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that has been overhauled, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 80 operating hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

    (f) Installation Prohibitions

    After the effective date of this AD:

    (1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any engine, any cylinder assembly removed per this AD.

    (2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder assembly that has been overhauled, into any engine.

    (3) Do not install any engine that has one or more affected overhauled ECi cylinder assemblies, onto any aircraft.

    (4) Do not return to service any aircraft that has an engine installed with an ECi cylinder assembly subject to this AD, if the cylinder assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours TIS.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Delegation Systems Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

    (h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Delegation Systems Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193; phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 817-222-5785; email: [email protected]

    (2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009, contact Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx.

    (3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 10, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21205 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3642; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-028-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for SOCATA Models TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 62.41.76.54; or SOCATA North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023, telephone: (954) 893-1400; fax: (954) 964-4141; Internet: http://www.socata.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2015-3642; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2015-3642; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-028-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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 Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0130, dated July 7, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During accomplishment of SOCATA Service Bulletin (SB) SB10-152-55 at original issue, some operators reported finding heavy corrosion of the horizontal stabilizer (HS) spar.

    The results of the technical investigation have identified that the corrosion was caused by humidity ingress in the HS on aeroplanes subject to severe environmental conditions.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in buckling and permanent HS distortion, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, SOCATA issued SB 10-152-55 Revision 1 to provide instructions for inspection and corrective action.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive inspections of the affected area of the HS and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3642.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    SOCATA has issued DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-152, Amendment 1, dated April 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspection for corrosion on horizontal stabilizer spar and repair, if necessary. 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 the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 195 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $33,150, or $170 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 15 to 38 work-hours and require parts costing $250 to $400 depending on the type of repair, for a cost of $2,325 to $4,280 per product. The cost may vary depending on the extent of damage found. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 AD: SOCATA: Docket No. FAA-2015-3642; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-028-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 13, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to SOCATA Models TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as humidity in the horizontal stabilizer on airplanes subject to severe environmental conditions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the horizontal stabilizer (HS) spar, which could lead to result in buckling and permanent HS distortion, possibly resulting in reduced control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this AD:

    (1) Within 13 months after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 72 months, do a special detailed inspection of the HS spar following the instructions of DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-152, Amendment 1, dated April 2015.

    (2) If no discrepancy is detected during any inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, protect the HS spar following the instructions of DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-152, Amendment 1, dated April 2015.

    (3) If any discrepancy is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective action(s) following the instructions of DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-152, Amendment 1, dated April 2015.

    (4) Accomplishment of protection or corrective actions on an airplane as required by paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD for that airplane.

    (5) Inspections and corrective actions on an airplane, done before the effective date of this AD following the instructions of DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Recommended Service Bulletin SB 10-152, dated May 2013, are acceptable to comply with the requirements of this AD for that airplane. After the effective date of this AD, repetitive inspections and applicable corrective actions, as required by this AD, must be done as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD following the instructions of DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 10-152, Amendment 1, dated April 2015.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0130, dated July 7, 2015; and DAHER-SOCATA TB Aircraft Recommended Service Bulletin SB 10-152, dated May 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3642. For service information related to this AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 62.41.76.54; or SOCATA North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023, telephone: (954) 893-1400; fax: (954) 964-4141; Internet: http://www.socata.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 20, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21283 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 187 [Docket No.: FAA-2015-3597; Notice No. 15-06] RIN 2120-AK53 Update of Overflight Fee Rates AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would update existing overflight fee rates using more current FAA cost accounting and air traffic activity data. Overflight fees are charges for aircraft flights that transit U.S.-controlled airspace, but neither land in nor depart from the United States. Overflight fee rates were last updated in 2011. As a result, the FAA is not recovering the full cost of the services it provides. The FAA proposes to increase the rates for Enroute and Oceanic overflights based on fiscal year 2013 cost and air traffic activity data. The FAA proposes to phase in this rate increase over three years in equal percentage terms. This is a less burdensome approach than the alternative of phasing in the new rates in equal absolute terms, and is the same methodology used in the previous rulemaking. Finally, the FAA proposes several organizational and clarifying revisions to the overflight fee requirements.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3597 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concerning this action, contact Aleksandra Damsz, Financial Analyst, Office of Financial Analysis, AFA-400, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8055; email [email protected]

    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Jonathan Cross, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7173; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Chapter 453, Section 45301 et seq. Under that Chapter, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations for the collection of fees for air traffic control and related services provided to aircraft, other than military and civilian aircraft of the United States Government or a foreign government, that transit U.S.-controlled airspace, but neither take off from nor land in the United States (“overflights”). This rulemaking is within the scope of that authority.

    I. Executive Summary

    The FAA proposes to increase the rates for Enroute and Oceanic overflights over a 3-year period to bring cost recovery from Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 recovery to FY 2013 recovery. The following table shows the proposed increases.

    Table 1—Proposed Rate Increases for Enroute and Oceanic Overflights Revision date Enroute rate
  • (per 100
  • nautical miles)
  • Oceanic rate
  • (per 100
  • nautical miles)
  • Current Rate $56.86 $21.63 October 1, 2015 58.45 23.15 October 1, 2016 60.07 24.77 October 1, 2017 61.75 26.51

    The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommends that the “cost to be shared is the full cost of providing the air navigation services” and that the “approach toward the recovery of full costs should be a gradual progression.” 1 The FAA requests comments on whether it should expedite the rate of increase to achieve full cost recovery before 2017.

    1 ICAO's Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services, Document 9082, at 15-06 (2009).

    The FAA also proposes several organizational and content revisions to part 187 to clarify the overflight fees requirements.

    Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    The higher overflight rates based on FY 2013 unit costs would allow the FAA to move closer to full cost recovery of air traffic control services already being provided to operators. The present value of the projected fee increases through FY 2018—when the full increase in rates would have taken place—would be $9,560,692 for foreign operators and $141,888 for domestic operators. The updated fees would provide greater incentives for foreign and domestic operators to economize on U.S. air traffic control facilities and U.S.-controlled airspace, thus increasing the efficient allocation of resources.

    II. Background History of Overflight Fees

    The FAA's overflight fees were initially authorized in section 273 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996.2 After a series of legal challenges and refinements, overflight fees were implemented in their current form in 2001.3 Since that time the fee rates have been based on cost data from the FAA's Cost Accounting System (CAS) and air traffic data from the FAA's Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS 4 ). They were last updated in 2011.5 The 2011 final rule updated the existing rates by using cost and activity data for FY 2008. Because the rates had not been updated for 9 years, and the total Enroute and Oceanic rate increases were significant, the FAA decided to phase in the increases. The 2011 final rule phased in the increases over a 4-year period, with rate increases occurring on October 1 of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Thus, on October 1, 2014, the FAA was recovering the amounts that would have produced full cost recovery in FY 2008.

    2 Pub. L. 104-264, 110 Stat. 3213 (Oct. 9, 1996). The statutory authority has been updated several times, most recently with section 122 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 19 (Feb. 14, 2012).

    3 66 FR 43680 (Aug. 20, 2001). A full discussion of the history of overflight fees can be found in the Update of August 2001 Overflight Fees final rule. See 76 FR 43112, 43112-43114 (Jul. 20, 2011).

    4 TFMS was formerly known as the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS).

    5 76 FR 43112 (Jul. 20, 2011).

    Aviation Rulemaking Committee

    The FAA established and chartered an Overflight Fees Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) consisting of foreign air carriers (and trade associations of those carriers) that are subject to the FAA's overflight fees. The ARC was chartered on May 1, 2013, with the task to provide the FAA a report detailing recommendations for tasks moving forward with the overflight fees update process.

    The ARC met with the FAA on June 12, 2013, and on January 23, 2014. On February 14, 2014, the ARC submitted several recommendations on future overflight rate updates.6

    6 A copy of the “Recommendation of the Industry Members of the 2013/2014 FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee on Overflight Fees” is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    The ARC recommended that the FAA increase overflight rates annually from FY 2016 (beginning October 1, 2015) through FY 2018 (beginning October 1, 2017) at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of FY 2008 through FY 2013 FAA costs, calculated separately for the Enroute and Oceanic rates. Calculations from CAS show this would result in an annual increase of 1.72% for Enroute fees, and an annual increase of 3.76% for Oceanic fees. In other words, the ARC proposed that the FAA phase in the rate increases using equal annual percentage increases as done in the 2011 final rule. The final proposed fees are listed in the table below:

    Table 2—ARC Proposed Rate Increases for Enroute and Oceanic Overflights Revision date ARC-Proposed
  • enroute rate
  • (per 100
  • nautical miles)
  • ARC-Proposed
  • oceanic rate
  • (per 100
  • nautical miles)
  • Current Rate $56.86 $21.63 October 1, 2015 57.77 22.40 October 1, 2016 58.75 23.23 October 1, 2017 59.75 24.09

    The ARC stated that while it does not challenge the use of CAS as a basis for setting the fee, it does not endorse the current methodology as a whole and recommends that the cost base exclude certain elements of the FAA's overhead and other non-overflight related costs.

    Similar recommendations were proffered in comments leading to the 2011 final rule.7 In consideration of this ARC recommendation, the FAA has reviewed its costing methodology and determined that the best approach is to update the methodology to exclude Enroute Guam and San Juan costs from total FAA costs since these combined control facilities may handle a mix of general and commercial aviation traffic. Enroute costs for Honolulu were already excluded and are handled similarly to Guam and San Juan. With this approach, Enroute costs for Guam, San Juan and Honolulu, which are similar facility types, are being treated in the same manner. Additionally, to be consistent with the treatment of costs for these facilities, flight miles for Honolulu and Guam are being excluded from Enroute and Oceanic miles respectively in estimating the fees. With this change, the treatment of miles for Honolulu, Guam and San Juan are in line with the treatment of costs and are consistent with FAA air traffic boundary definitions. The FAA's costs used for this fee calculation are total costs because the services provided benefit all system users, including overflight users. As stated in 2011, any costs related to low activity airports and airfields where traffic is controlled by Enroute controllers are de minimus. Finally, the allocation of overhead is consistent with the currently implemented methodology and with generally accepted accounting principles.

    7See 76 FR 43112, 43114-43116 (Jul. 20, 2011).

    The ARC industry members recommended that the FAA include all traffic receiving services from the FAA ATO personnel in Enroute and Oceanic Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) in the determination of the flight miles that are used in the rate calculation. The ARC contended that currently only filed flight plans (IFR/VFR) are used in the fee calculation while a significant portion of the traffic consists of the unfiled VFR traffic using flight following or being actively separated from IFR.

    For this rulemaking, the ARC recommendation is consistent with the FAA's approach to determine the total miles used to calculate the overflight fee rate. VFR aircraft, which use flight-following services without filing a flight plan, are assigned discrete beacon codes and included as part of the total miles used to determine the fee rates.

    The ARC industry members also recommended that the FAA continue to engage in meaningful financial discussions with its stakeholders and provide full transparency on its cost development through CAS. The industry members recommended that the FAA provide the industry (including the non-ARC members) on an annual basis with year-to-year comparisons of costs and traffic, and that any major changes in allocations between cost centers are accompanied by the high level summary justifying the changes. The industry members also asked that a new ARC be convened in three years to analyze the costs and air traffic activity data and determine the need for a future change of rates for FY 2019 and beyond based on the updated cost and traffic data.

    The FAA generally supports continued engagement with industry members. The FAA will consider reconvening an ARC for future rate updates and will continue to provide cost and activity data through the rulemaking process.

    Finally, the ARC industry members recommended that the FAA set a target on its cost development that remains below inflation and takes into consideration the expected development of traffic.

    The FAA believes forecasting based on projected traffic is more appropriate than using arbitrary cost targets. Each year the FAA publishes a 10-year Aerospace Forecast that includes anticipated levels of activity. FAA hiring and capital investments are based on forecasted levels of traffic activity.

    III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The FAA proposes to update overflight fee rates based on final CAS data and TFMS data for FY 2013, which are the most recent cost and air traffic activity data available. This update uses the same general methodology, calculation, and data sources as those used for the last update in 2011.8 The general methodology had been recommended by the ARC and adopted by the FAA for the 2011 final rule. The FAA continues to believe it is a reasonable methodology and has updated this methodology based on an ARC recommendation to exclude costs and miles for combined control facilities that may handle a mix of general and commercial aviation traffic.

    8 A copy of the “Costing Methodology Report Fiscal Year 2013” is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Separate overflight rates have been established, and are currently in effect, for flights that transit U.S.-controlled airspace in each of two operational environments (Enroute and Oceanic airspace) without taking off from or landing in the United States.9 The updated Enroute rate would be derived by dividing the total costs incurred in the Enroute environment in FY 2013 by the number of nautical miles flown in U.S.-controlled Enroute airspace in FY 2013. Similarly, the Oceanic rate would be derived by dividing the total Oceanic costs for FY 2013 by the total number of Oceanic miles flown in FY 2013. These calculations would each produce a per-mile cost that would be levied as a rate per 100 nautical miles flown. The rates calculated (based on FY 2013 data) for Enroute and Oceanic overflights are $61.75 and $26.51, respectively. The step-by-step derivation of these rates, using CAS and TFMS numbers for FY 2013, is shown in the “Overflight Fee Rate Development Report.” 10

    9 A copy of the “Description of U.S.-Controlled Airspace” is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    10 A copy of the “Overflight Fee Rate Development Report” is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    As in the 2011 update, the FAA proposes to phase in the rate increases. This approach is consistent with ICAO's principle of gradualism. The FAA proposes a 3-year phase-in for this fee increase. The FAA intends the first increase would occur beginning on October 1, 2015, and proceed according to the following schedule:

    Table 3—Proposed Rate Increases for Enroute and Oceanic Overflights Revision date Enroute rate
  • (per 100
  • nautical miles)
  • Oceanic rate
  • (per 100
  • nautical miles)
  • Current Rate $56.86 $21.63 October 1, 2015 58.45 23.15 October 1, 2016 60.07 24.77 October 1, 2017 61.75 26.51

    The FAA has considered the ARC recommendation. While the FAA believes the ARC's approach is not unreasonable, the FAA has decided to not move forward with the ARC recommendation since the methodology to increase rates based on the CAGR between FY 2008 through FY 2013 allows only a partial recovery of the FY 2013 costs that the FAA is authorized to recover. Using that methodology, the FAA would have recovered slightly less than 60% for Enroute and 50% for Oceanic of the total increase between FY 2015 rates (based on FY 2008 costs) and rates using FY 2013 data. The FAA is instead moving forward with the same basic approach that was used in the FY 2011 final rule, which would recover the FY 2013 cost basis beginning in FY 2018.

    The FAA also proposes organizational changes to part 187 to clarify the overflight fee requirements. The FAA proposal replaces current Appendix B of part 187 with new §§ 187.3 (Definitions), 187.51 (Applicability of overflight fees), 187.53 (Calculation of overflight fees), and 187.55 (Overflight fees billing and payment procedures). Except as discussed in the following paragraphs, the FAA proposes no changes to the substance of current requirements.

    In § 187.1, the FAA proposes to remove the duplicate reference to Appendix A, remove the reference to Appendix B because Appendix B is being removed, and add a reference to Appendix C that inadvertently had not been added when Appendix C (computation of fees for production certification-related services performed outside the United States) was added. The FAA proposes a new § 187.3 to contain definitions relevant to part 187. The terms overflight, overflight through Enroute airspace, overflight through Oceanic airspace, and U.S.-controlled airspace had been defined in Appendix B. The FAA proposes to revise the definition for U.S.-controlled airspace to be more consistent with the definition under international treaties, ICAO standards and guidance, customary law, and Presidential Proclamation Number 5928.11 Finally, the FAA proposes to define great circle distance consistent with the FAA's method used for calculating overflight fees.

    11 54 FR 777 (Dec. 27, 1988).

    In new § 187.51, the FAA proposes a new paragraph (d) to address fees for flights through U.S.-controlled airspace covered by an FAA agreement or other binding arrangement. The FAA periodically enters into agreements with foreign States, regional groups of States, or foreign air navigation services providers to set the terms for the FAA's management or control of foreign airspace among other air navigation services provided by the FAA. Generally, these agreements include specific terms for how the FAA recovers costs for the services it provides. This paragraph would avoid a potential conflict between such an agreement or arrangement and FAA regulations as well as ensure that overflight fee regulations apply uniform conditions and are non-discriminatory as required under the Chicago Convention. The FAA also proposes to remove the exception from overflight fees for Canada-to-Canada flights because those flights would continue to be addressed under proposed paragraph (d).

    In new § 187.53, the FAA proposes to retain the formula for calculating overflight fees from existing Appendix B but also proposes to clarify the explanation of calculating that fee. The total fee for a particular flight would be the sum of the Enroute and Oceanic fees. The Enroute and Oceanic fees would be calculated by multiplying the Enroute or Oceanic rate (per 100 nautical miles), respectively, by the number of miles flown through each segment of Enroute or Oceanic airspace, respectively. Miles flown through each segment of airspace would be calculated, using great circle distance (GCD), from the point of entry into U.S.-controlled airspace to the point of exit from U.S.-controlled airspace. As under the current rule, the FAA would use the best available flight data to calculate the entry and exit points. The FAA is considering removing the formula because it is redundant and has created confusion. The FAA requests comments on whether the formula still is necessary in light of the narrative explanation.

    The proposed billing and payment procedures in new § 187.55 are unchanged from those in existing Appendix B.

    IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.

    A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.

    This proposed rule would institute a 3-year phase-in of rate increases for Oceanic and Enroute overflights, with rates per 100 nautical miles increasing in FY 2016-2018 to $23.15, $24.77, and $26.51 for Oceanic flights, and to $58.45, $60.07, and $61.75 for Enroute flights. The final FY 2018 rate of $26.51 for Oceanic services is derived from the FAA's FY 2013 total cost of providing these services divided by the total nautical miles flown by operators (overflights and non-overflights) in Oceanic airspace. An analogous calculation is made to obtain the FY 2018 rate of $61.75 for Enroute services. These higher rates based on FY 2013 unit costs would allow the FAA to move closer to full cost recovery of air traffic control services already being provided to operators.

    Tables 4 and 5 show estimates of the increase in overflight fees for domestic operators and foreign operators for FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018, using FY 2013 overflight mileage totals assuming no annual growth. As the tables show, the present value of the projected fee increases through FY 2018—when the full increase in rates would have taken place—would be $141,888 for domestic operators and $9,560,692 for foreign operators. The updated fee rates would provide greater incentives for foreign and domestic operators to economize on U.S. air traffic control facilities and U.S.-controlled airspace, thus increasing the efficient allocation of resources.

    Table 4—Domestic Operators—Overflight Fees Domestic operators FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Oceanic Fees (per 100 nm) $21.63 $23.15 $24.77 $26.51 Oceanic Billings w/o Proposed Rule 528,616 528,616 528,616 528,616 Oceanic Billings w/Proposed Rule 528,616 565,707 605,400 647,878 Increase in Oceanic Billings 0 37,091 76,784 119,262 Enroute Fees (per 100 nm) $56.86 $58.45 $60.07 $61.75 Enroute Billings w/o Proposed Rule 634,376 634,376 634,376 634,376 Enroute Billings w/o Proposed Rule 634,376 652,064 670,245 688,933 Increase in Enroute Billings 0 17,688 35,869 54,557 Increase in Overflight Billings 0 54,779 112,653 173,819 PV Increase in Overflight Billings 0 $51,195 $98,395 $141,888 Table 5—Foreign Operators—Overflight Fees Foreign operators FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Oceanic Fees (per 100 nm) $21.63 $23.15 $24.77 $26.51 Oceanic Billings w/o Proposed Rule 28,072,427 28,072,427 28,072,427 28,072,427 Oceanic Billings w/Proposed Rule 28,072,427 30,042,152 32,150,083 34,405,920 Increase in Oceanic Billings 0 1,969,724 4,077,656 6,333,493 Enroute Fees (per 100 nm) $56.86 $58.45 $60.07 $61.75 Enroute Billings w/o Proposed Rule 62,543,288 62,543,288 62,543,288 62,543,288 Enroute Billings w/Proposed Rule 62,543,288 64,287,136 66,079,607 67,922,055 Increase in Enroute Billings 0 1,743,848 3,536,318 5,378,767 Increase in Overflight Billings 0 3,713,572 7,613,974 11,712,259 PV Increase in Overflight Billings 0 $3,470,628 $6,650,340 $9,560,692 Notes: 1. Rates for overflights are per 100 nautical miles. 2. Fees are in U.S. dollars. 3. Values are discounted back to FY 2015 at a 7% discount rate.12

    12 Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-94, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,” October 29, 1992, p. 8.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

    For FY 2013 there were 469 domestic operators who overflew U.S.-controlled airspace, many of whom appear to be small entities. As Table 4 shows, however, after the phase-in of fee increases has been completed, in FY 2018, overflight billings to domestic operators would have increased by just $173,819. Dividing this figure by the number of FY 2013 domestic overflights, 4762, the FAA estimates that the average increase in overflight billings would be $36.50 per operation. Accordingly, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. ICAO standards allow providers of navigation services to require users of these services to pay their share of the related costs. The FAA has determined that this proposed rule primarily affects foreign commercial operators. The proposal to recover costs of providing air navigation services is consistent with ICAO standards and international practice. Foreign operators would be charged a fee only if they use U.S.-controlled airspace without taking off or landing in the U.S., and U.S. operators would be charged in the same manner. Accordingly, the FAA does not believe this proposal would create an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this rule. The information used to track overflights (including the information collection necessary to implement this rule) can be accessed from flight plans filed with the FAA. The collection of information from the Domestic and International Flight Plans is approved under OMB information collection 2120-0026.

    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

    The ICAO guidance document on aviation fees and charges, ICAO Document 9082 (Ninth Edition—2012), ICAO's Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services, recommends consultations before imposing fees. In addition, Article 12 of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union and its Member States (April 30, 2007, as amended June 24, 2010) encourages consultation.

    By convening an ARC, presenting updated cost and traffic data to the ARC, and considering the ARC's recommendation, the FAA consulted with system users prior to proposing this overflight fee update. Additionally, the FAA invites comments on this proposal, which permits participation by all interested parties in the rulemaking process.

    G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

    VI. Additional Information A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

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

    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 187

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air transportation.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 187—FEES 1. Revise the authority citation for part 187 to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 106(l)(6), 40104-40105, 40109, 40113-40114, 44702, 45301.

    2. Revise § 187.1 to read as follows:
    § 187.1 Scope.

    This part prescribes fees only for FAA services for which fees are not prescribed in other parts of this chapter or in 49 CFR part 7. The fees for services furnished in connection with making information available to the public are prescribed exclusively in 49 CFR part 7. Appendix A to this part prescribes the methodology for computation of fees for certification services performed outside the United States. Appendix C to this part prescribes the methodology for computation of fees for production certification-related services performed outside the United States.

    3. Add § 187.3 to read as follows:
    § 187.3 Definitions.

    For the purpose of this part:

    Great circle distance means the shortest distance between two points on the surface of the Earth.

    Overflight means a flight through U.S.-controlled airspace that does not include a landing in or takeoff from the United States.

    Overflight through Enroute airspace means an overflight through U.S.-controlled airspace where primarily radar-based air traffic services are provided.

    Overflight through Oceanic airspace means an overflight through U.S.-controlled airspace where primarily procedural air traffic services are provided.

    U.S.-controlled airspace means all airspace over the territory of the United States, extending 12 nautical miles from the coastline of U.S. territory; any airspace delegated to the United States for U.S. control by other countries or under a regional air navigation agreement; or any international airspace, or airspace of undetermined sovereignty, for which the United States has accepted responsibility for providing air traffic control services.

    4. Add §§ 187.51, 187.53, and 187.55 to read as follows:
    § 187.51 Applicability of overflight fees.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section, any person who conducts an overflight through either Enroute or Oceanic airspace must pay a fee as calculated in section 187.53.

    (b) Services. Persons covered by paragraph (a) of this section must pay a fee for the FAA's rendering or providing of certain services, including but not limited to the following:

    (1) Air traffic management.

    (2) Communications.

    (3) Navigation.

    (4) Radar surveillance, including separation services.

    (5) Flight information services.

    (6) Procedural control.

    (7) Emergency services and training.

    (c) The FAA does not assess a fee for any military or civilian overflight operated by the United States Government or by any foreign government.

    (d) Fees for overflights through U.S.-controlled airspace covered by a written FAA agreement or other binding arrangement are charged according to the terms of that agreement or arrangement unless the terms are silent on fees.

    § 187.53 Calculation of overflight fees.

    (a) The FAA assesses a total fee that is the sum of the Enroute and Oceanic calculated fees.

    (1) Enroute fee. The Enroute fee is calculated by multiplying the Enroute rate in paragraph (c) of this section by the total number of nautical miles flown through each segment of Enroute airspace divided by 100 (because the Enroute rate is expressed per 100 nautical miles).

    (2) Oceanic fee. The Oceanic fee is calculated by multiplying the Oceanic rate in paragraph (c) of this section by the total number of nautical miles flown through each segment of Oceanic airspace divided by 100 (because the Oceanic rate is expressed per 100 nautical miles).

    (b) Distance flown through each segment of Enroute or Oceanic airspace is based on the great circle distance (GCD) from the point of entry into U.S.-controlled airspace to the point of exit from U.S.-controlled airspace based on FAA flight data. Where actual entry and exit points are not available, the FAA will use the best available flight data to calculate the entry and exit points.

    (c) The rate for each 100 nautical miles flown through Enroute or Oceanic airspace is:

    Time period Enroute rate Oceanic rate Through September 30, 2015 56.86 21.63 October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016 58.45 23.15 October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 60.07 24.77 October 1, 2017 and beyond 61.75 26.51

    (d) The formula for the total overflight fee is:

    Rij = E*DEij/100 + O*DOij/100 Where: Rij = the total fee charged to aircraft flying between entry point i and exit point j. DEij = total distance flown through each segment of Enroute airspace between entry point i and exit point j. DOij = total distance flown through each segment of Oceanic airspace between entry point i and exit point j. E and O = the Enroute and Oceanic rates, respectively, set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (e) The FAA will review the rates described in this section at least once every 2 years and will adjust them to reflect the current costs and volume of the services provided.

    § 187.55 Overflight fees billing and payment procedures.

    (a) The FAA will send an invoice to each user when fees are owed to the FAA. If the FAA cannot identify the user, then an invoice will be sent to the registered owner. Users will be billed at the address of record in the country where the aircraft is registered, unless a billing address is otherwise provided.

    (b) The FAA will send an invoice if the monthly (based on Universal Coordinated Time) fees equal or exceed $250.

    (c) Payment must be made by one of the methods described in § 187.15(d).

    Appendix B to Part 187—[Removed and Reserved]
    5. Remove and reserve Appendix B to Part 187. Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 45302, in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2015. David Rickard, Director, Office of Financial Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21293 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 299 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0648] RIN 0910-AH25 Designation of Official Names and Proper Names for Certain Biological Products AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing a regulation to designate official names and proper names for certain biological products. These products are filgrastim-sndz (Biologics License Application (BLA) 125553), filgrastim (BLA 103353), tbo-filgrastim (BLA 125294), pegfilgrastim (BLA 125031), epoetin alfa (BLA 103234), and infliximab (BLA 103772). The official names and proper names of these products would include distinguishing suffixes composed of four lowercase letters and would be designated as filgrastim-bflm (BLA 125553), filgrastim-jcwp (BLA 103353), filgrastim-vkzt (BLA 125294), pegfilgrastim-ljfd (BLA 125031), epoetin alfa-cgkn (BLA 103234), and infliximab-hjmt (BLA 103772). Although FDA is continuing to consider the appropriate naming convention for biological products, including how such a convention would be applied retrospectively to currently licensed products, FDA is proposing to take action with respect to these six products because of the need to encourage routine usage of designated suffixes in ordering, prescribing, dispensing, recordkeeping, and pharmacovigilance practices for the biological products subject to this rulemaking, and to avoid inaccurate perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of biological products based on their licensure pathway.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by November 12, 2015. See section IV of this document for the proposed effective date of any final rule that may publish based on this proposal.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

    Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0648 for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading in section VIII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    With the passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act), which established an abbreviated licensure pathway for products demonstrated to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference product, a growing number of biological products will be entering the marketplace.

    Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, sets forth the requirements for an application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application or a supplement for a proposed interchangeable product. Section 351(i) of the PHS Act defines biosimilarity to mean that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product (section 351(i)(2) of the PHS Act). To meet the additional standard of interchangeability, an applicant must provide sufficient information to demonstrate biosimilarity and also to demonstrate that the biological product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, if the biological product is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch (section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act). Interchangeable products may be substituted for the reference product by a pharmacist without the intervention of the prescribing health care provider (section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act).

    During FDA's implementation of the BPCI Act, the Agency has opened several dockets to solicit comments on issues related to the naming of biological products licensed under section 351(k) of the PHS Act.1

    1 See, e.g., notices that published in the Federal Register “Approval Pathway for Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biological Products; Public Hearing; Request for Comments” (75 FR 61497, October 5, 2010) and “Draft Guidances Relating to the Development of Biosimilar Products; Public Hearing; Request for Comments” (77 FR 12853, March 2, 2012) and other public dockets established by FDA.

    FDA also has received several citizen petitions directed to the nonproprietary naming of biosimilar products. The citizen petition submitted by Johnson & Johnson requests that FDA require biosimilar products to bear nonproprietary names that are similar to, but not the same as, those of their reference products or of other biosimilars (see Docket No. FDA-2014-P-0077, available at http://www.regulations.gov). The citizen petitions submitted by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association and Novartis request that FDA require biosimilar products to be identified by the same nonproprietary name as their reference products (see Docket Nos. FDA-2013-P-1153 and FDA-2013-P-1398, respectively, available at http://www.regulations.gov). Novartis supplemented its petition to propose a unique name for all biologics and biosimilars, such that if a biosimilar sponsor elected not to use a unique proprietary name for its product, FDA should assign a unique nonproprietary name composed of the reference product nonproprietary name supplemented with a distinguishable suffix linked to the biosimilar sponsor so that it can be differentiated from the reference product. While FDA is proposing to designate distinguishable nonproprietary names for the six biological products that are the subject of this rulemaking for the reasons discussed in this document, FDA is continuing to consider the issues raised by these citizen petitions and the comments submitted to the corresponding public dockets with respect to establishing a general naming convention for biological products.

    In a separate notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance document entitled “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products” (draft guidance). The draft guidance describes FDA's current thinking and requests additional public comment on the Agency's proposal to implement a naming convention of a proper name that will include a core name and a designated suffix for all biological products within the scope of the guidance. For originator products, FDA intends to use a core name that is the name adopted by the United States Adopted Names (USAN) Council for the drug substance when available. If the biological product is a related biological product,2 a biosimilar product, or an interchangeable product, the core name will be the name of the drug substance contained in the relevant previously licensed product. As described in the draft guidance, a designated suffix composed of four lowercase letters will be added to the core name of each product and will be attached with a hyphen. Importantly, use of a shared core name would indicate a relationship among products. The placement of the identifier as a suffix should result in biological products with the same core name being grouped together in electronic databases to help health care providers identify these products. The draft guidance states that FDA intends to apply the naming convention described in the guidance to interchangeable products and is considering comment on two alternative approaches: A unique suffix that distinguishes an interchangeable product from other products sharing the same core name, or a suffix shared with the reference product.

    2 A “related biological product” is described in the guidance as a biological product submitted in a BLA under section 351(a) of the PHS Act (i.e., a “stand-alone” BLA) for which there is a previously licensed biological product submitted in a different section 351(a) BLA that contains a drug substance for which certain nomenclature conventions (e.g., USAN Guiding Principles) would be expected to provide for use of the same drug substance name. An “originator biological product” is defined as a biological product submitted in a BLA under section 351(a) of the PHS Act (i.e., a “stand-alone” BLA) for which there is no previously licensed biological product submitted under section 351(a) that is a related biological product. FDA uses these definitions for purposes of this notice.

    While the draft guidance describes a naming convention in which the designated suffixes would be devoid of meaning, the notice of availability for the draft guidance invites comment not only on that naming convention but also on the benefits and challenges of alternate approaches, including meaningful suffixes such as a suffix derived from the name of the license holder.

    The draft guidance describes FDA's rationale for the proposed naming convention and requests public comment on FDA's intention to apply this convention to biological products previously licensed and newly licensed under section 351(a) or section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The draft guidance explains that FDA is continuing to consider the most effective regulatory approach to implement the naming convention for previously licensed biological products, and FDA encourages interested parties to submit comments on biological product naming issues to the public docket established for the draft guidance (Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1543, available at http://www.regulations.gov).

    For the reasons described in the following section, FDA believes it is necessary at this time to designate official names and proper names for the six biological products described in this proposed rule.

    II. Description of the Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would designate the official names and the proper names of six biological products that fall under one of the following categories: (1) A reference product for an approved or publicly disclosed section 351(k) application (i.e., filgrastim (BLA 103353), pegfilgrastim (BLA 125031), infliximab (BLA 103772), and epoetin alfa (BLA 103234)); (2) a related biological product to one of these reference products (i.e., tbo-filgrastim (BLA 125294)); or (3) a biosimilar product (i.e., filgrastim-sndz (BLA 125553)).3

    3 FDA recognizes that a limited number of previously licensed biological products share the same proper name. As described in the draft guidance, FDA intends to apply the naming convention to biological products previously licensed under section 351(a) of the PHS Act, and is continuing to consider the most effective regulatory approach. In the meantime, FDA is proposing to assign distinguishing identifiers to biological products that are referenced by approved or publicly disclosed section 351(k) applications and any related biological products to those reference products.

    Section 508 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 358), which applies to biological products pursuant to section 351(j) of the PHS Act, provides FDA with authority to designate official names for drugs if it determines that such action is necessary or desirable in the interest of usefulness and simplicity. Section 508 further specifies that any official name designated under that section shall be the only official name of that drug used in any official compendium published after such name has been prescribed or for any other purpose of this chapter. Under § 299.4(e) (21 CFR 299.4(e)), FDA will publish official names under the provisions of section 508 of the FD&C Act when the Agency determines, among other bases, that the USAN or other official or common or usual name is unduly complex or is not useful for any other reason.

    For biological products licensed under the PHS Act, FDA designates the proper name in the license for use upon each package of the biological product (see section 351(a)(1)(B)(i) of the PHS Act and 21 CFR 600.3(k)). The proper name of a biological product reflects certain scientific characteristics of the product, such as chemical structure and pharmacological properties. Among other things, the proper name of a biological product helps health care providers identify the product's drug substance and distinguish biological products from one another. Although FDA typically designates the proper name of a product upon its licensure, FDA also has the authority to designate proper names for biological products through regulation (see, e.g., designation of proper names for various products in 21 CFR part 640).

    A. Basis for the Designation of Distinguishable Names for Certain Biological Products 1. Safe Use

    Biological products generally consist of large, complex molecules and can raise unique safety concerns related to immunogenicity. FDA believes that the nonproprietary naming convention for the biological products described in this proposed rule should help prevent inadvertent substitution, which may lead to unintended switching or alternating of biological products that have not been determined by FDA to be interchangeable with each other. FDA believes this naming convention will help to facilitate safe use and protect the safety of patients.

    Inadvertent switching between biological products that have not been shown to be interchangeable may affect immune response. For example, in some instances, immune responses to therapeutic proteins may pose safety and efficacy issues (Ref. 1). For example, immune responses can lead to significant clinical consequences, such as pure red cell aplasia; inhibition of the efficacy of therapeutics; and reactions, including serum sickness and anaphylaxis (Ref. 1). Individual patients can vary in their immune responses to protein products, and these differences can be caused by the same genetic components that have an impact on sensitivity to small changes in structure (Ref. 2). Thus, switching or alternating of biological products not determined by FDA to be interchangeable may raise unique safety concerns related to immunogenicity.

    If originator biological products, related biological products, and biosimilar products share the same proper name, a patient could receive a product different from what was intended to be prescribed, leading to medication errors. For example, this could occur if a biosimilar product were licensed for fewer than all of the indications and routes of administration for which its reference product is licensed, or is packaged in a different delivery system (e.g., a pre-filled syringe instead of a vial) than approved for its reference product, which may lead to confusion and dosing errors. A related biological product also may be licensed for different indications than an originator biological product and may have different dosage forms or strengths than an originator biological product. Confusion may also arise among health care providers who, based on their experience with small-molecule drugs and generic versions of those drugs, may incorrectly assume the use of the same proper name to mean that the biological products are interchangeable.

    Thus, FDA has determined that designation of a proper name containing a distinguishing identifier for these six biological products is the best mechanism to facilitate their safe use. FDA believes that incorporating a distinguishing suffix into the nonproprietary names of these six biological products will increase the likelihood that the intended biological product will be prescribed and will not be inadvertently substituted at the dispensing or product administration level. Specifically, FDA believes that incorporation of these suffixes into the nonproprietary product names listed in prescribing, ordering, and dispensing systems will assist prescribers in selecting the specific intended product, pharmacists in dispensing the correct product, and health care providers in administering the correct product.

    Health care providers and information technology specialists who program electronic databases can consult the Purple Book (Lists of Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations), an online resource that lists all FDA-licensed biological products by their nonproprietary name and clearly identifies products that have been approved as biosimilar to or interchangeable with a particular reference product.

    2. Pharmacovigilance

    The Agency considers appropriate pharmacovigilance fundamentally important for all biological products. Although safety of drug and biological products is rigorously assessed prior to approval, safety issues that are specific to a manufacturer may arise after approval with any marketed product. Therefore, a robust pharmacovigilance program is essential to help ensure patient safety. To ensure continued safety of a biological product, appropriate pharmacovigilance necessitates that FDA be able to track adverse events to a specific manufacturer (and, as appropriate, site or lot for a particular biological product), and that surveillance systems be able to detect safety signals throughout the lifecycle of a product, so that the Agency and the manufacturer can act swiftly and in a targeted manner to identify and address a problem.

    Pharmacovigilance systems, both active and passive, vary in their use of identifiers to differentiate among biological products; these identifiers may include the brand (proprietary) name, proper (nonproprietary) name, manufacturer, national drug code (NDC) number, lot number, and billing codes. Successful use of active pharmacovigilance systems (such as FDA's Sentinel system) for adverse event tracking relies on the standardized coding systems for capturing drug information in administrative and health care claims and billing records. These coding systems may vary based on the setting in which a drug is dispensed. Many therapeutic biological products are administered in settings, such as physician offices, clinics, or hospitals, where the administrative and billing data do not routinely include product identifiers such as brand name, manufacturer, NDC number, or lot number (Refs. 3 and 4). Thus, active pharmacovigilance systems that use administrative and billing data currently have limited ability to track biological products that share the same nonproprietary name to the manufacturer.

    Similarly, in many passive pharmacovigilance systems, proprietary names and NDC numbers are often not included in adverse event reports (Refs. 5 and 6). FDA uses the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, a “passive” surveillance system that compiles mandatory adverse event reports from manufacturers and voluntary reports submitted directly to FDA by health care professionals and patients. FDA requires manufacturers and others with mandatory reporting obligations to submit an adverse event report to FDA when a minimum of four elements (identifiable patient, identifiable reporter, suspect product, and an event or fatal outcome) are present, even if other required elements, such as NDC numbers, are not available. It is well known that many reports lack key information and that the information identifying products in spontaneous reports can be unreliable (Ref. 6). Proprietary names, even when included, may not reliably identify products in spontaneous adverse event reports since misattribution can occur with adverse event reporting. Furthermore, because national health care systems, health care professional organizations, and patient safety organizations recommend the use of nonproprietary names for prescribing and listing of drug products, the nonproprietary name may be the name used by some reporters to identify the drug products in the adverse event reports (Refs. 7 and 8). In addition, although NDC numbers can be used to identify manufacturer-specific information about a product, they are infrequently provided in spontaneous adverse event reports, and may not be available to the reporter at the time of reporting, or during followup with the reporter. As a result, the use of distinct proprietary names or NDC numbers is currently insufficient to address all concerns regarding pharmacovigilance. Distinguishable nonproprietary names for the biological products in this rulemaking would provide another critical tool in uniquely identifying these biological products. Use of such names for the biological products in this rulemaking would preserve the ability to detect both product-specific safety signals and class effects, and would facilitate prompt evaluation of safety signals in passive and active postmarketing surveillance systems.

    Although FDA believes the use of distinguishable nonproprietary names for originator biological products, related biological products, and biosimilar products could improve pharmacovigilance, FDA is interested in comments addressing whether any potential alternative approaches such as increased use of NDC numbers and/or other tracking information would also improve pharmacovigilance of these products.

    3. Additional Benefits of Consistent Naming Convention for These Biological Products

    FDA believes that it is important to initiate and encourage routine usage of designated suffixes in ordering, prescribing, dispensing, recordkeeping, and pharmacovigilance practices for these six biological products. The designated suffix would provide a consistent, readily available, and recognizable mechanism for health care professionals (including providers and pharmacists) and patients to correctly identify these biological products, regardless of their licensure pathway. The consistent use of a designated suffix for these biological products would remove ambiguity about the identity of the intended biological product. If a core name was used without such identifier, it may be unclear whether the originator product, a related biological product, or a biosimilar product was intended to be ordered, prescribed, dispensed, administered, or reported.

    This naming convention would have the added benefit of avoiding inaccurate perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of biological products based on their licensure pathway. The safety and effectiveness of biological products is rigorously assessed before approval. A number of comments have expressed concern that requiring distinguishable proper names only for biosimilar products would adversely affect health care provider and patient use of these new products (Ref. 9). FDA shares the concern that such an approach could lead to inaccurate and scientifically unfounded assertions of inferiority or clinically meaningful differences of an approved biosimilar product for its approved indications. FDA anticipates that use of proper names with designated suffixes for these originator biological products, related biological products, and biosimilar products, irrespective of their licensure pathway, would help avoid any inaccurate perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of biological products based on licensure pathway and thus address concerns raised by the comments.

    B. Designation of Official Names and Proper Names for Certain Biological Products

    We are proposing to add subpart B on Designated Names and proposed § 299.20 (21 CFR 299.20) to designate the official names and proper names of certain biological products. The six biological products included in proposed § 299.20 have been selected because they fall under one of the following categories: (1) Reference product for an approved or publicly disclosed section 351(k) application (i.e., filgrastim (BLA 103353), epoetin alfa (BLA 103234), infliximab (BLA 103772), and pegfilgrastim (BLA 125031)); (2) related biological product to one of these reference products (i.e., tbo-filgrastim (BLA 125294)); or (3) biosimilar product (i.e., filgrastim-sndz (BLA 125553)).

    We are proposing to designate the official name of “filgrastim-jcwp” for the biological product licensed under BLA 103353, held by Amgen, Inc. (Amgen) and to change the proper name designated in the license from “filgrastim” to “filgrastim-jcwp.” Filgrastim, marketed as NEUPOGEN, is the reference product for ZARXIO (filgrastim-sndz), a biosimilar product recently licensed under section 351(k) of the PHS Act.

    We also are proposing to designate the official name of “filgrastim-vkzt” for the biological product licensed under BLA 125294, held by Sicor Biotech, UAB, and to change the proper name designated in the license from “tbo-filgrastim” to “filgrastim-vkzt.” Tbo-filgrastim, marketed as GRANIX, is a related biological product. FDA has determined that the current names of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim are not useful within the meaning of section 508 of the FD&C Act. Although these products are distinguished from each other and from filgrastim-sndz, FDA believes that the addition of a distinguishing suffix to both names, and the elimination of the prefix from tbo-filgrastim, would avoid confusion regarding these products' relationships to one another and to filgrastim-sndz. The placement of the identifier as a suffix should result in an originator product, a related biological product, and a biosimilar product being grouped together in electronic databases, yet remaining distinguishable, which should help health care providers identify these products. Also, assignment of suffixes to all filgrastim products would help avoid a potential inaccurate perception that filgrastim-sndz, or any other biosimilar product that may be licensed in the future, differs in a clinically meaningful way from its reference product or is inferior for its approved conditions of use.

    In addition, we are proposing to designate the official name of “filgrastim-bflm” for the biological product licensed under BLA 125553, held by Sandoz, Inc., and to change the proper name designated in the license from “filgrastim-sndz” to “filgrastim-bflm.” Filgrastim-sndz, marketed as ZARXIO, is a biosimilar product recently licensed under section 351(k) of the PHS Act, and the distinguishing suffix designated at the time of licensure was derived from the name of the license holder. In light of FDA's current proposal to designate official names and proper names for five other biological products that would include distinguishing suffixes devoid of meaning, in the interest of usefulness and simplicity the name “filgrastim-bflm” should be designated as the official name and the proper name and codified with the names designated for filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim in proposed § 299.20.

    We are proposing to designate the official names and change the proper names for three other reference products for section 351(k) applications that have been publicly disclosed. These reference products are epoetin alfa (BLA 103234), infliximab (BLA 103772), and pegfilgrastim (BLA 125031). We are proposing to designate the official name of “epoetin alfa-cgkn” for the biological product licensed under BLA 103234, held by Amgen and marketed as EPOGEN and PROCRIT, and to change the proper name designated in the license from “epoetin alfa” to “epoetin alfa-cgkn.” We also are proposing to designate the official name of “infliximab-hjmt” for the biological product licensed under BLA 103772, held by Janssen Biotech, Inc. and marketed as REMICADE, and to change the proper name designated in the license from “infliximab” to “infliximab-hjmt.” Finally, we are proposing to designate the official name of “pegfilgrastim-ljfd” for the biological product licensed under BLA 125031, held by Amgen and marketed as NEULASTA, and to change the proper name designated in the license from “pegfilgrastim” to “pegfilgrastim-ljfd.”

    FDA has determined that the current names of “epoetin alfa,” “infliximab,” and “pegfilgrastim” are not useful within the meaning of section 508 of the FD&C Act. Considerations similar to those described for filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim warrant the designation of official names and proper names that include distinguishing suffixes for pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, and infliximab. These products are the reference products for publicly disclosed applications under section 351(k) of the PHS Act (Ref. 10). FDA believes that it is important to initiate and encourage routine usage of designated suffixes in ordering, prescribing, dispensing, recordkeeping, and pharmacovigilance practices for these products. Also, in the event that a biosimilar product is approved that relies upon one of these products as a reference product, assignment of designated suffixes to the reference products would help avoid potential inaccurate perceptions that any biosimilar product with a proper name that features a distinguishing suffix differs in a clinically meaningful way or is inferior for its approved conditions of use. Accordingly, in the interest of usefulness and simplicity, FDA is proposing to designate official names with designated suffixes that would also be designated as the proper names for these products.

    The official names and proper names in proposed § 299.20 include designated suffixes composed of four lowercase letters. The official names and proper names, if finalized, will appear on all labeling and marketing materials for these products where the product's proper name or drug substance name is provided.

    In addition, FDA also has determined that the following alternative names that include distinguishing suffixes devoid of meaning may be acceptable for these products: epoetin alfa-mkdv, filgrastim-gknh, filgrastim-kbhj, filgrastim-zbdt, infliximab-djfg, and pegfilgrastim-vjbk.

    FDA is also considering an alternative nonproprietary naming format for biological products in which the suffix attached to the core name would be derived from the name of the license holder listed on the license. Under this alternative naming format, the official names and proper names for the six products that are the subject of this proposed rule could be as follows:

    BLA Number and holder Official name and proper name 103234, Amgen, Inc. epoetin alfa-amgn. 103353, Amgen, Inc. filgrastim-amgn. 125553, Sandoz, Inc. filgrastim-sndz. 125294, Sicor Biotech UAB filgrastim-srbt. 103772, Janssen Biotech, Inc. infliximab-jnsn. 125031, Amgen, Inc. pegfilgrastim-amgn.

    Each of the official names and proper names in proposed § 299.20 and each the alternative official names and proper names discussed previously was rigorously evaluated and determined unlikely to be a source of errors. Each of these official names and proper names (core name-suffix) would be sufficiently distinct from the nonproprietary names of other products. The designated suffixes are distinct from other drug substance names, do not look similar to the names of other currently marketed products, are sufficiently distinct from other suffix designations, and do not include any abbreviations commonly used in clinical practice in a manner that may lead the suffix to be misinterpreted as another element on the prescription or order.

    While alternative official names and proper names are described in this preamble to the proposed rule, the final rule would designate a single official name that also would be designated as the proper name for each product.

    FDA invites comment on the proposed official names and proper names for these products, including the alternative names listed previously and any other proposed names containing suffixes composed of four lowercase letters that would accomplish the objectives stated in this document. In particular, FDA invites comment on the benefits and challenges of designating a distinguishing suffix that is unique to each of these six biological products versus designating a distinguishing suffix that is shared by each product manufactured by a single license holder (i.e., the three biological products manufactured by Amgen). FDA also invites comment on whether meaningful suffixes (e.g., suffixes derived from the names of the license holders) would be expected to be more memorable or useful to health care providers or patients than suffixes devoid of meaning, and therefore be more useful for facilitating the safe use and appropriate pharmacovigilance of these products. FDA further requests comment on whether meaningful suffixes derived from the name of the license holder might create inappropriate market advantages that would impede biosimilar products' acceptance in the market.

    Following approval of a BLA supplement to update product labeling with the official name and proper name designated in any final rule, FDA would take steps to ensure that its drug listings that interface with other databases and systems reflect the newly designated nonproprietary name. FDA also would work with other governmental organizations and external stakeholders that play a role in national drug naming or listings to help ensure that the official name and proper name for the product is displayed accurately in drug listing systems. We invite comment on the best means of coordinating with external stakeholders that play a role in drug naming and listing to achieve this objective considering, among other things, any transition period before market availability of products labeled with the newly designated nonproprietary names.

    III. Legal Authority

    Section 508 of the FD&C Act and section 351 of the PHS Act serve as the principal legal authorities for this proposed rule. Section 508 of the FD&C Act, which applies to biological products pursuant to section 351(j) of the PHS Act, provides FDA with authority to designate official names for drugs if it determines that such action is necessary or desirable in the interest of usefulness and simplicity. For the reasons described previously, FDA has determined that the interest of usefulness and simplicity warrants the designation of official names for the products included in this rulemaking. FDA also has authority under section 351(a) of the PHS Act to designate the proper name of a biological product and may do so through rulemaking. FDA is exercising this authority to designate matching proper names for these products.

    Thus, section 508 of FD&C Act and section 351 of the PHS Act, in conjunction with FDA's general rulemaking authority in section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), provide legal authority for this proposed rule.

    IV. Effective Date

    FDA proposes that any final rule that may be issued based on this proposal become effective 90 days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register. During the 90-day period after publication of any final rule, FDA expects that BLA holders for these six products would submit a prior approval supplement to their BLA to update the labeling of their product. After approval of the supplement, FDA intends to work with sponsors to minimize any manufacturing and distribution disruptions related to the implementation of new labeling and any related marketing materials. FDA expects that manufacturers will implement the new labeling at the time of their next manufacturing run and does not intend to object to manufacturers exhausting existing inventories of finished product that is not labeled with the official names and proper names designated by this rule.

    V. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) and (k) and 25.31(a) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts: Summary

    FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule imposes one-time relabeling costs on one small business, the Agency proposes to certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2014) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

    We estimate the one-time costs of learning about the rule; submitting labeling supplements, forms, and revised marketing materials to FDA; changing labeling on affected products; FDA review of labeling supplements, forms, and revised marketing materials; and activities to educate practitioners about name changes. The one-time costs range from $0.78 million to $3.04 million. Over 10 years, the annualized costs range from $0.10 million to $0.40 million with a 7 percent discount rate, and from $0.09 million to $0.35 million with a 3 percent discount rate.

    We expect the rule would have other costs that are not yet included in these estimated costs. Additional costs to industry may include costs updating prescribing and reimbursement systems to reflect the new names and changing marketing materials to reflect the new names.

    We lack data to quantify the benefits of the proposed rule. In the event of biosimilar entry, the name changes for certain products that would be required by this proposed rule may help mitigate a potential competitive disadvantage for biosimilar products that receive a nonproprietary name that includes a distinguishing suffix. More competition between the biosimilar product and the reference product may reduce the price and increase the usage of those products. The proposed rule may also encourage the routine use of suffixes for these six biological products, which may facilitate more accurate prescribing and monitoring of these six biological products if biosimilar products enter the market.

    Table 1—Summary of Costs 1 Total benefits One-time costs ($ mil) Low estimate High estimate Total annualized costs over 10 years with 3 percent discount rate ($ mil) Low estimate High estimate Total annualized costs over 10 years with 7 percent discount rate ($ mil) Low estimate High estimate Not estimated 0.78 3.04 0.09 0.35 0.10 0.40 1Note: Costs are rounded.

    The Economic Analysis of Impacts of the proposed rule performed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0648 and at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm (Ref. 11).

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no new collection of information. The official names and proper names of each of these biological products, as designated by the proposed rule, would be information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public, and the public disclosure of such information is not a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, clearance by the OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.

    The discussion of effective date in the preamble (section IV) to this proposed rule references certain actions that would be taken by manufacturers and applicants for the specific approved biological products for which this proposed rule would designate official names and proper names, in order to comply with existing FDA regulations that contain collections of information that are subject to review by OMB under the PRA.

    Specifically, prior to the effective date of any final rule based on this proposal, a prior approval supplement would be submitted in accordance with § 601.12 (21 CFR 601.12) for each of six specific BLAs referenced in this rule, to update the labeling of the product (which includes the immediate container label and outer container or package) with the designated official name and proper name. The submission of supplements to approved license applications under § 601.12 is approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. We estimate that this rulemaking would result in the one-time submission of six supplements. In conjunction with our previously approved collection of information under § 601.12, we estimated that each such supplement would incur a burden of 40 hours.

    The discussion of effective date also acknowledges that these applicants would revise their labeling, which includes the immediate container label and outer container or package, to reflect the newly designated official names and proper names. (As noted, disclosing the official names and proper names of each of these biological products to the public is not a “collection of information” within the meaning of the PRA. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).) The design and testing of prescription drug labeling required under §§ 201.56 and 201.57 (21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57) (including § 201.56(a)(2)) is approved under OMB control number 0910-0572. Concerning the immediate container label and outer container or package, in the Federal Register of December 18, 2014 (79 FR 75506), we published a proposed rule on the electronic distribution of prescribing information for human prescription drugs, including biological products. In section VII, “Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,” we estimated the burden to design (including revisions), test, and produce the label for a drug's immediate container and outer container or package, as set forth in 21 CFR part 201 and other sections in subpart A and subpart B.

    VIII. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IX. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the proposed rule, if finalized, would not contain policies that would 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. Accordingly, the Agency tentatively concludes that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    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. (FDA has verified all the Web site addresses in this reference section, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    1. FDA, Guidance for Industry, “Immunogenicity Assessment for Therapeutic Protein Products,” August 2014, available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm338856.pdf. 2. Buck D., S. Cepok, S. Hoffmann, et al., “Influence of the HLA-DRB1 Genotype on Antibody Development to Interferon Beta in Multiple Sclerosis.” Archives of Neurology, 68(4):480-487, 2011. 3. Nease, R., S. Miller, and S. G. Frazee, “2010 Specialty Drug Trend Report.” Express Scripts Specialty Benefit Services (June 2011). 4. Vora, J. B., “Evaluation of Medical Specialty Medications: Utilization and Management Opportunities,” Commissioned by CVS Caremark (April 8, 2014), available at http://info.cvscaremark.com/insights2014/Singh06-Medical-Specialty-Utilization-and-Management-Opportunities.pdf. 5. Dal Pan, G. J., M. Lindquist, and K. Gelperin, “Postmarketing Spontaneous Pharmacovigilance Reporting Systems,” Chapter 10, in Pharmacoepidemiology, 5th ed., edited by B. L. Strom and S. Hennessy. Etobicoke (Canada): John Wiley & Sons; 2012. 6. Getz, K. A., S. Stergiopoulos, and K. I. Kaitin, “Evaluating the Completeness and Accuracy of MedWatch Data,” American Journal of Therapeutics, 21(6):442-446, 2014. 7. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), “ASHP Guidelines on Preventing Medication Errors With Chemotherapy and Biotherapy,” 2014, available at http://www.ashp.org/DocLibrary/BestPractices/MedMisGdlAntineo.aspx. 8. Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), “ISMP's Guidelines for Standard Order Sets,” available at http://ismp.org/tools/guidelines/StandardOrderSets.asp. 9. See, e.g., Comments from AARP to Docket Nos. FDA-2011-D-0605, FDA-2011-D-0602, and FDA-2011-D-0611 on “Draft Guidance Documents on Biosimilar Product Development,” available at http://www.regulations.gov. 10. “Apotex Announces FDA Has Accepted for Filing Its Biosimilar Application for Pegfilgrastim” (December 17, 2014), available at http://www.apotex.com/global/about/press/20141217.asp; “Hospira Submits New Biologics License Application to U.S. FDA for Proposed Epoetin Alfa Biosimilar,” PR Newswire (January 12, 2015), available at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hospira-submits-new-biologics-license-application-to-us-fda-for-proposed-epoetin-alfa-biosimilar-300018991.html; “Celltrion Files for US FDA Approval of Remsima®,” (August 11, 2014), available at http://www.celltrion.com/en/COMPANY/notice_view.asp?idx=456&code=ennews&intNowPage=1&menu_num=&align_year=all. 11. “Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for Designation of Official Names and Proper Names for Certain Biological Products; Proposed Rule,” available at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 299

    Drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, FDA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 299 as follows:

    PART 299—DRUGS; OFFICIAL NAMES AND ESTABLISHED NAMES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 299 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 331, 351, 352, 355, 358, 360b, 371; 42 U.S.C. 262.

    2. Add subpart B to Part 299 to read as follows: Subpart B—Designated Names
    § 299.20 Official names and proper names of certain biological products.

    (a) The Food and Drug Administration has designated official names under section 508 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the biological products licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act in the biologics license applications provided in the following list. The official name shall be the proper name designated in the license for use upon each package of the product.

    Biologics license application (BLA) number Official name and proper name BLA 103234 epoetin alfa-cgkn. BLA 103353 filgrastim-jcwp. BLA 125553 filgrastim-bflm. BLA 125294 filgrastim-vkzt. BLA 103772 infliximab-hjmt. BLA 125031 pegfilgrastim-ljfd.

    (b) [Reserved]

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21382 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-103033-11] RIN 1545-BK62 Reportable Transactions Penalties Under Section 6707A AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations that provide guidance regarding the amount of the penalty under section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction. The proposed regulations are necessary to clarify the amount of the penalty under section 6707A, as amended by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The proposed regulations would affect any taxpayer who fails to properly disclose participation in a reportable transaction.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by November 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103033-11), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103033-11), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-103033-11).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Melissa Henkel, (202) 317-6844; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6707A was added to the Code by section 811(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418) and was amended by section 11(a)(41) of the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-172, 121 Stat. 2473). Section 6707A imposes a penalty on a taxpayer who has a duty to disclose a reportable transaction and fails to do so. It also imposes a requirement that certain taxpayers must disclose in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) any requirement to pay a penalty under (1) section 6707A with respect to a listed transaction, (2) section 6662A with respect to an undisclosed reportable transaction, or (3) section 6662(h) with respect to an undisclosed reportable transaction. Failure to make that required disclosure to the SEC subjects a taxpayer to another penalty under section 6707A. On September 11, 2008, temporary regulations (TD 9425) relating to the penalty under section 6707A were published in the Federal Register (73 FR 52784). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-160868-04) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register on the same day (73 FR 52805). Section 6707A was amended again in 2010 by section 2041(a) of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504) (the Jobs Act), which changed the amount of the penalty from a stated dollar amount to a percentage (with maximum and minimum dollar amounts). Before the Jobs Act was enacted, the penalty was $10,000 in the case of a natural person ($50,000 in any other case) and, in the case of a listed transaction, $100,000 in the case of a natural person ($200,000 in any other case). In some cases, this structure resulted in penalties that were potentially disproportionate to the tax benefit derived from the transaction. See “Legislative Recommendations with Legislative Action: Modify Internal Revenue Code Section 6707A to Ameliorate Unconscionable Impact,” National Taxpayer Advocate 2008 Annual Report to Congress vol. 1, at 419. In response, Congress amended section 6707A(b) through the Jobs Act. See Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 111th Congress (JCS-2-11), March 2011 (explaining the reasons for the change to section 6707A). The Jobs Act amended section 6707A(b) to make the penalty 75 percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a result of a reportable transaction, with a minimum penalty amount of $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a natural person). The maximum penalty amount is $200,000 ($100,000 in the case of a natural person) for failure to disclose a listed transaction, or $50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person) for failure to disclose any other reportable transaction. The 2010 amendment specifying the amount of the penalty applies to penalties assessed after December 31, 2006. See Jobs Act § 2041(b), 124 Stat. at 2560. On September 7, 2011, final regulations (TD 9550) were published in the Federal Register (76 FR 55256). The final regulations in TD 9550 did not provide guidance on the amount of the penalty as amended by the Jobs Act beyond reciting the language of section 6707A because the notice of proposed rulemaking on which those final regulations were based predated the Jobs Act. The proposed regulations in this document provide guidance on the amount of the penalty under section 6707A, as amended by the Jobs Act.

    Explanation of Provisions

    The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the existing regulations relating to the penalties under section 6707A.

    1. Definition of Return

    Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4 establishes that a taxpayer whose amended return or application for tentative refund reflects participation in a reportable transaction has the same disclosure obligation as a taxpayer whose original return reflects participation in a reportable transaction. Treas. Reg. § 301.6707A-1, published on September 11, 2011, clarifies that a taxpayer's failure to disclose participation in a reportable transaction will trigger a penalty under section 6707A regardless of whether the participation is reflected on an original return, an amended return, or an application for tentative refund. In its current state, the regulation generally refers to original returns, amended returns, and applications for tentative refund in every case where all three terms are relevant. The proposed regulations streamline these references by defining the term “return” to include all three. This change simplifies sentences throughout the regulation without changing their meaning.

    2. Amount of the Penalty A. Decrease in Tax

    Subject to certain minimum and maximum amounts, “the amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction shall be 75 percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from such transaction if such transaction were respected for Federal tax purposes).” Section 6707A(b)(1). The proposed regulations define this decrease in tax generally as the difference between the amount of tax reported on the return as filed and the amount of tax that would be reported on a hypothetical return where the taxpayer did not participate in the reportable transaction. The amount of tax shown on the hypothetical return will reflect adjustments that result mechanically from backing out the reportable transaction, such as tax items affected by an increase in adjusted gross income resulting from non-participation in the reportable transaction.

    In some situations, a taxpayer's participation in a listed transaction creates a liability for a tax that would not exist absent participation in the transaction. For example, a taxpayer engaging in a listed abusive Roth IRA transaction may be subject to an excise tax on excess IRA contributions. If the taxpayer fails to report the excise tax on his excess IRA contributions, this amount of tax would not appear on the return filed by the taxpayer that reflected his participation in the reportable transaction. The excise tax would also not appear on a return filed by the taxpayer if he had not engaged in the transaction, because there would be no excess contribution on which excise tax would be imposed. Therefore, the difference between these two returns would result in no decrease in tax attributable to the unreported tax. To capture this tax, the proposed regulations include in the definition of the decrease in tax “any other tax that results from participation in the reportable transaction but was not reported on the taxpayer's return.” Example 1 in § 301.6707A-1(d)(2) illustrates this rule.

    B. Subsequently Identified Transactions

    Listed transactions and transactions of interest are identified in published guidance. See § 1.6011-4(b)(2), (6). Once a listed transaction or a transaction of interest is identified by published guidance, a taxpayer has a reporting obligation if the taxpayer participated in the transaction prior to the issuance of the guidance and the statute of limitations for the year of the taxpayer's participation remains open. See § 1.6011-4(e)(2). Under § 1.6011-4, the taxpayer may use a single disclosure statement to disclose multiple years of participation in a reportable transaction. Because the taxpayer in these cases is permitted to disclose multiple years of participation on a single statement, the taxpayer's failure to complete and submit the disclosure statement properly will result in no more than one penalty under section 6707A. The proposed regulations provide, however, that the amount of that penalty will be determined by taking into account the aggregate decrease in tax shown on all of the returns for which disclosure was not provided. Accordingly, under the proposed regulations, the decrease in tax will be determined separately for each year of participation for which only a single disclosure statement was required and the amount of the penalty will be 75 percent of the aggregate decrease in tax in all years for which disclosure was required, subject to the minimum and maximum penalty amount limitations.

    C. Penalty Under Section 6707A(e) for Failure To Report to the Securities and Exchange Commission

    Section 6707A(e) generally requires certain taxpayers who must pay penalties under sections 6707A, 6662A (accuracy-related penalty on understatements with respect to reportable transactions), or 6662(h) (accuracy-related penalty on underpayments attributable to gross valuation misstatements) to disclose their liability for these penalties in filings with the SEC. The flush language of section 6707A(e) provides that “[f]ailure to make a disclosure in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be treated as a failure to which the penalty under subsection (b)(2) applies.” However, as discussed in the Background section of this preamble, subsection (b)(2) was amended in 2010. Prior to enactment of the Jobs Act, section 6707A(b)(2) provided that the amount of the penalty for failure to disclose participation in a listed transaction was $100,000 for natural persons and $200,000 in any other case. After the 2010 amendments, section 6707A(b)(2) now provides that “[t]he amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction shall not exceed— (A) in the case of a listed transaction, $200,000 ($100,000 in the case of a natural person), or (B) in the case of any other reportable transaction, $50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).”

    Treasury and the Service do not believe that Congress intended its reference to subsection (b)(2) to impose the maximum penalty on violations of section 6707A(e). This would be contrary to the purpose of the 2010 amendments to section 6707A, which sought to make the penalty proportionate to the tax benefit derived by the transaction. A reference solely to subsection (b)(2) does not make sense in terms of describing the amount of the penalty, as subsection (b)(2) merely caps the amount of the penalty that can be imposed on a failure to disclose and does not provide a particular amount for the penalty. It seems likely that the intent was to reference the amount of the penalty generally under subsection (b). The proposed regulations clarify this point.

    In each case giving rise to an obligation to disclose liability in filings with the SEC, there must be a reportable transaction for the relevant penalty to arise. The amount of the penalty for a violation of section 6707A(e), therefore, will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax, as provided in section 6707A(b). In addition to being consistent with the language of section 6707A(e), the proposed regulations are also consistent with the Congressional intent of the 2010 amendments to section 6707A to render proportionality between the amount of the penalty and the tax benefit derived from the reportable transaction. See JCS-2-11.

    D. Minimum and Maximum Amount of the Penalty

    Pursuant to section 6707A(b)(2), “[t]he amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction shall not exceed” certain specified dollar values. Likewise, under section 6707A(b)(3), “[t]he amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with respect to any transaction shall not be less than” certain specified dollar values. Under the proposed regulations, these minimum and maximum limits on the amount of the penalty would be applied separately to each individual penalty under section 6707A(a). The limitations in sections 6707A(b)(2) and (3) apply expressly to “[t]he amount of the penalty under subsection (a).” Because, as provided in § 301.6707A-1(c), each separate failure to disclose a reportable transaction gives rise to a new penalty under section 6707A(a), the minimum and maximum limits on the amount of the penalty apply separately to each failure to disclose.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 of, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to the proposed regulations. Because the proposed regulations would not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.

    Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of the proposed regulations are Melissa Henkel of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) and Spence Hanemann, formerly of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

    Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 301.6707A-1 is amended by: 1. Adding paragraph (b)(3). 2. In paragraph (c)(1), removing the language “(including an amended return or application for tentative refund)” in the fifth sentence. 3. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g). 4. Adding new paragraph (d). 5. In newly designated paragraph (e), removing the language “(d)” wherever it appears and adding “(e)” in its place. 6. In newly designated paragraph (e)(3)(i), removing the language “(including an amended return or application for tentative refund)” wherever it appears. 7. In newly designated paragraph (f), removing the language “(e)” wherever it appears and adding “(f)” in its place. 8. Revising newly designated paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 301.6707A-1. Failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction.—

    (b) * * *

    (3) Return. For purposes of this section, the term “return” means an original return, amended return, or application for tentative refund, except where otherwise indicated. As used in examples, the term “return” means an original return, except where otherwise indicated.

    (d) Calculation of the penalty. (1) Decrease in tax—(i) In general. As used in this section, the phrase “decrease in tax shown on the return as a result of the transaction or the decrease that would have resulted from the transaction if it were respected for Federal tax purposes” means the sum of (A) the excess of the amount of the tax that would be shown on the return if the return did not reflect the taxpayer's participation in the reportable transaction over the tax actually reported on the return reflecting participation in the reportable transaction and (B) any other tax that results from participation in the reportable transaction but was not reported on the taxpayer's return. The amount of tax that would be shown on the return if it did not reflect the taxpayer's participation in the reportable transaction includes adjustments that result mechanically from backing out the reportable transaction, such as tax items affected by an increase in adjusted gross income resulting from not participating in the transaction. Under this rule, it makes no difference whether a taxpayer's tax liability is ultimately settled with the IRS for a different amount or whether the taxpayer subsequently reports a different amount of tax on an amended return, because these amounts do not enter into the calculation of the decrease in tax shown on the return (or returns) to which the penalty relates.

    (ii) Subsequently identified transactions. If the taxpayer fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement required by § 1.6011-4(e)(2)(i) disclosing participation in a listed transaction or transaction of interest with respect to more than one return, the amount of the penalty will be computed by aggregating the decrease in tax shown on each return for which the required disclosure was not provided.

    (iii) Penalty for failure to report to the SEC. In the case of a penalty imposed under section 6707A(e) for failure to disclose liability for certain penalties in reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the amount of the penalty will be determined under section 6707A(b) and this paragraph (d), regardless of whether the penalty that the taxpayer failed to disclose is imposed under section 6707A, 6662A, or 6662(h).

    (iv) Minimum and maximum amount of the penalty. The limitations on the minimum and maximum penalty amounts described in paragraph (a) of this section apply separately to each failure to disclose that is subject to a penalty.

    (2) No tax required to be shown on return. For returns with respect to which disclosure is required but on which no tax is required to be shown (for example, returns of passthrough entities), the minimum penalty amount will be imposed for failures to disclose.

    (3) Examples. The rules in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

    Example 1.

    Taxpayer X, a natural person, filed a return reflecting participation in an abusive Roth IRA transaction listed in Notice 2004-8, 2004-1 I.R.B. 333 (Jan. 26, 2004). As described in the notice, X's Roth IRA acquired shares of a wholly owned corporation and then X sold assets to the corporation at less than fair market value, effectively transferring value to the corporation comparable to a contribution to the Roth IRA. X failed to disclose his participation in the listed transaction as required by the regulations under section 6011. As a result of the transaction, X was liable under section 4973 for a $10,000 excise tax for excess contributions to his Roth IRA. On his return, X correctly reported $25,000 of income tax, none of which was attributable to the listed transaction, but failed to report the excise tax. If X had not participated in the listed transaction, the excise tax under section 4973 would not have applied and his income tax would have remained $25,000. There would, therefore, be no difference between the tax on his return as filed and the tax on his return if it did not reflect participation in the transaction. The excise tax, however, is another tax that resulted from participation in the transaction but was not reported on X's return, as described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section. Therefore, the decrease in tax resulting from the listed transaction is $10,000, which amount is the sum of zero (the excess of the amount of tax that would be shown on X's return if the return did not reflect X's participation in the transaction over the tax X actually reported on the return reflecting X's participation in the transaction) and $10,000 (the amount of excise tax that resulted from participation in the transaction but was not reported on the return). The amount of the penalty will be $7,500, which amount is 75 percent of the $10,000 decrease in tax.

    Example 2.

    Taxpayer X participated in a listed transaction that resulted in a $40,000 decrease in the tax shown on its return. X failed to disclose its participation and is, therefore, subject to a penalty under section 6707A. After weighing litigating hazards and other costs of litigation, the IRS Office of Appeals agreed to settle X's deficiency for $20,000. For purposes of calculating the amount of the penalty, the settlement does not affect the decrease in tax shown on X's return as a result of the listed transaction, which remains $40,000. The amount of X's penalty will be $30,000, which amount is 75 percent of the $40,000 decrease in tax.

    Example 3.

    Taxpayer X, a natural person, participated in a nonlisted reportable transaction and, because he failed to disclose his participation, is subject to a penalty under section 6707A. After offsetting gross income with the losses generated in the reportable transaction, X's return reported adjusted gross income of $100,000. The return also reported $12,000 of medical expenses, $2,000 of which were deductible after applying the 10 percent floor in section 213(a). If X's return had not reflected participation in the reportable transaction, his adjusted gross income would have been $140,000. The decrease in tax shown on X's return as a result of the transaction would take into account both the tax on the $40,000 difference in adjusted gross income and the tax on the $2,000 adjustment to X's deductible medical expenses under section 213(a) caused by the increase in adjusted gross income.

    Example 4.

    Taxpayer X, a natural person, timely filed his 2014 return and reported income tax of $40,000. X did not participate in a reportable transaction in 2014. X participated in a listed transaction in 2015, but failed to file a complete and proper disclosure statement with his 2015 return as required by the regulations under section 6011. As filed, the 2015 return reports that X owes no tax and has a loss of $10,000. If the tax consequences of the listed transaction were not reflected on the 2015 return, the return would show income tax of $15,000 and no loss. X files an amended return for his 2014 tax year on which its only amendment is to carry back the $10,000 loss reported on its 2015 tax return to the 2014 tax year, which decreases X's tax liability for 2014 by $3,000. X fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement with the 2014 amended return as required by the regulations under section 6011. X will be assessed two penalties under section 6707A: one for his failure to disclose participation in a listed transaction reflected on his 2015 tax return and another for his failure to disclose participation in the same listed transaction reflected on his 2014 amended return. The decrease in tax on the 2015 tax return resulting from the listed transaction is $15,000, which amount is the excess of the amount of tax that would be shown on X's return if the return did not reflect X's participation in the transaction over the tax X actually reported on the return reflecting X's participation in the transaction. The amount of the penalty with respect to the 2015 tax return is $11,250, which amount is 75 percent of the decrease in tax. The decrease in tax on the 2014 amended return that results from the listed transaction is $3,000, which is the excess of the amount of tax that would be shown on X's return if the return did not reflect X's participation in the transaction over the tax X actually reported on the return reflecting X's participation in the transaction. See § 301.6707A-1(c). Because X is a natural person, the amount of the penalty with respect to the 2014 amended return is $5,000, which is the minimum penalty under § 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3).

    Example 5.

    Taxpayer X, a corporation, timely files its 2012 and 2013 tax returns, each of which reflects participation in the same transaction. In 2015, the transaction becomes a listed transaction and X fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement as required by the regulations under section 6011. X was required to file a single disclosure statement reflecting its participation in the listed transaction for all years which had open periods of limitation on assessment at the time the transaction became listed. When the transaction at issue became listed, the periods of assessment on X's 2012 and 2013 tax years were open. Pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the amount of the penalty for X's single failure to disclose its participation in the transaction in 2012 and 2013 is computed by aggregating the decrease in tax shown on the 2012 return and the decrease in tax shown on the 2013 return. The decreases in tax shown on the returns as a result of X's participation in the transaction are $265,000 in tax year 2012 and $7,000 in tax year 2013. The total decrease in tax shown on both returns is $272,000, and 75 percent of that amount is $204,000. Because X is a corporation, the amount of the penalty will be limited to the maximum amount of $200,000 under § 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(2)(A).

    Example 6.

    The 2014 return of Taxpayer X, a natural person, reflects participation in a nonlisted reportable transaction, but X fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement as required by the regulations under section 6011. The decrease in tax shown on X's 2014 return as a result of participation in the reportable transaction is $20,000. X subsequently files an amended 2014 return to include a net operating loss carried forward from a prior year, which X inadvertently failed to include when he filed his original return. The amended return reflects participation in the same reportable transaction, but X again fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement. The decrease in tax shown on the amended 2014 return as a result of participation in the transaction is also $20,000. X is subject to two separate penalties: one for each failure to disclose. Seventy-five percent of the $20,000 decrease in tax shown on each of the original 2014 return and the amended 2014 return is $15,000 for each return. Because X is a natural person, the amount of the penalty for failure to disclose with respect to the original return will be limited to the maximum amount of $10,000 under § 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(2)(B). The amount of the penalty for failure to disclose with respect to the amended return will also be limited to the maximum amount of $10,000.

    Example 7.

    Partnership M is required to attach Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, to its Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for the 2014 taxable year. It fails to do so and is, therefore, subject to a penalty under section 6707A. The amount of the penalty will be the minimum penalty of $10,000 under § 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3) because Form 1065 is a return that does not show an amount of tax that would be decreased as a result of participation in the reportable transaction. The partners of Partnership M may have separate disclosure obligations as required by the regulations under section 6011 and would be subject to separate section 6707A penalties if they fail to comply with the disclosure requirements.

    Example 8.

    In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X participated in a listed transaction that resulted in a $150,000 deduction. X's gross income for 2014 before the listed transaction deduction is $100,000. X uses $100,000 of the deduction to offset $100,000 of gross income and reports tax of zero for 2014. X also has a $50,000 net operating loss for 2014. X timely elects to waive the carryback period and carry over the 2014 net operating loss to tax year 2015. X's gross income for tax year 2015 is $200,000 but as a result of the $50,000 net operating loss carryover, X reports $150,000 adjusted gross income. Pursuant to § 1.6011-4, X is required to disclose participation in the listed transaction for both 2014 and 2015, but X fails to make the required disclosures and is therefore subject to the section 6707A penalty for each failure. The decrease in tax on the 2014 return is the amount of tax on $100,000 because that is the difference between the amount of tax that would have been shown on the return if it did not reflect participation in the reportable transaction and the tax actually reported. No other tax resulted from X's participation in the listed transaction. The amount of the penalty with respect to X's failure to disclose with respect to 2014 will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax. The decrease in tax on the 2015 return is the difference between the tax shown on the return as filed and the tax that would be shown if the $50,000 net operating loss was not used, including any changes to the amount of tax that are only indirectly connected with the listed transaction. The amount of the penalty with respect to X's failure to disclose with respect to 2015 will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax.

    Example 9.

    In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X, a natural person, participated in a listed transaction that resulted in a $50,000 deduction. X's gross income for 2014 before the listed transaction deduction is $100,000. X also has a net operating loss carryover of $150,000 from 2013. X uses the deduction of $50,000 and a portion of the net operating loss carryover to offset $100,000 of gross income and reports adjusted gross income of zero for 2014. X carries over the remaining net operating loss to tax year 2015. X's gross income for 2015 is $250,000, but as a result of the net operating loss carryover, X reports reduced adjusted gross income of $150,000. Pursuant to § 1.6011-4, X is required to disclose participation in the listed transaction for both 2014 and 2015, but X fails to make the required disclosures and is subject to the section 6707A penalty for each failure. The decrease in tax on the 2014 return that results from the reportable transaction is zero. Because X has $150,000 of a net operating loss carryover not attributable to the reportable transaction, X's tax without the benefits of the reportable transaction is the same as the tax shown on the 2014 return as filed. Because X is a natural person, the minimum penalty of $5,000 under § 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3) will apply for the failure to disclose the listed transaction with the 2014 return. The decrease in tax on the 2015 return is the difference between the tax shown on the return as filed and the tax that would be shown if X had only $50,000 of net operating loss to carry over to 2015 (i.e., if X had not offset $50,000 of its 2014 gross income with the deduction resulting from the reportable transaction and thus had used $100,000 of its net operating loss carryover in 2014), including any changes to the amount of tax that are only indirectly connected with the listed transaction. The amount of the penalty with respect to the disclosure relating to 2015 will be 75 percent of this decrease in tax.

    Example 10.

    In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X, a corporation, engaged in a nonlisted reportable transaction and is subject to a penalty under section 6662A because its 2014 return resulted in a reportable transaction understatement. As a result of X's involvement in the transaction, it reported tax of $10,000 for 2014; if X had not engaged in the transaction, it would have reported tax of $200,000. X disclosed its involvement in the transaction as required by the regulations under section 6011, and thus was not subject to a penalty under section 6707A(a). As a person who is required to file periodic reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, however, X was also required, pursuant to section 6707A(e), to disclose the penalty imposed under section 6662A to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which X failed to do. X's failure to disclose the section 6662A penalty is treated as a failure to disclose to which section 6707A(b) applies. Thus, X will be subject to a penalty under section 6707A(e), which will equal 75 percent of the decrease in tax resulting from the transaction. The decrease in tax resulting from the nonlisted reportable transaction was $190,000, 75 percent of which is $142,500. Because X is a corporation, the amount of the penalty will be limited to $50,000 under § 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(2)(B).

    (g) * * *

    (1) This section applies to penalties assessed after the date that these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    (2) For penalties assessed before the date that these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register, § 301.6707A-1 (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2013) shall apply.

    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21259 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Parts 700, 701, 773, 774, 777, 779, 780, 783, 784, 785, 800, 816, 817, 824, and 827 [Docket ID: OSM-2010-0018; OSM-2010-0021; OSM-2015-0002 S1D1 SS08011000SX064A000156S180110; S2D2SS08011000SX064A00015X501520] RIN 1029-AC63 Stream Protection Rule AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing the schedule for public hearings on the proposed Stream Protection Rule and the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

    DATES:

    We will be holding public hearings on the proposed rule and DEIS on September 1, 3, 10, 15, and 17, 2015 at the locations listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice for the addresses at which we will hold the public hearings on the proposed rule and DEIS.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Villanueva, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, Colorado 80201, Phone: (303) 293-5057 Robert Evans, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503, Phone: (859) 260-3902 Len Meier, 501 Belle Street, Room 216, Alton, Illinois 62002, Phone: (618) 463-6463 x 5109 Ben Owens, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 152220, Phone: (412) 937-2827 Ian Dye, Jr., 1947 Neeley Road, Compartment 116, Suite 220, Big Stone Gap, VA 24219, Phone: (276) 523-0022 x 16 Roger Calhoun, 1027 Virginia Street East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301, Phone: (304) 347-7158 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The proposed rule, announced on July 16, 2015 and published on July 27, 2015 (80 FR 44436-44698), would modernize rules that are 32 years old in order to better protect people, water quality, and the environment from the adverse effects of coal mining. We will hold public hearings on the proposed Stream Protection Rule and the accompanying DEIS at the following locations on the listed dates:

    Tuesday, September 1, 2015: Jefferson County Fairgrounds Event Center, 15200 W. 6th Ave., Golden, CO 80401.

    Thursday, September 3, 2015: Lexington Convention Center, 430 W. Vine St., Lexington, KY 40507.

    Thursday, September 10, 2015: St. Charles Convention Center, 1 Convention Center Plaza, St. Charles, MO 63303.

    Thursday, September 10, 2015: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pittsburgh, 500 Mansfield Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15205.

    Tuesday, September 15, 2015: Mountain Empire Community College, 3441 Mt. Empire Rd., Big Stone Gap, VA 24219.

    Thursday, September 17, 2015: Charleston Civic Center, 200 Civic Center Dr., Charleston, WV 25301

    All hearings are scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. and end at 9 p.m. We will provide opportunities for interested parties to deliver or write comments onsite at each public hearing. We will also provide an opportunity for participants to speak with a court reporter who will transcribe their verbal comments for the written record. Additionally, the public will be able to speak in a public hearing format. Those speaking in the public hearing format must register to do so at the hearing, and will be called on a first-come, first-served basis as time allows. Verbal comments will be limited to two minutes in order to allow as many people to speak as possible. People are encouraged to provide their complete detailed comments in writing.

    The primary purpose of the hearings is to obtain input on the proposed rule and DEIS. Therefore, we encourage you to limit your testimony to the merits of the provisions of the proposed rule and DEIS.

    At the hearing, a court reporter will record and prepare a verbatim transcription of all comments presented. This written record will be made part of the docket for the DEIS and/or proposed rule. If you have a written copy of your comments, we encourage you to provide a copy to the moderator to assist the court reporter in preparing the written record.

    If you are a disabled individual who needs reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Harry J. Payne, Acting Assistant Director, Program Support. [FR Doc. 2015-21412 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280; FRL-9933-20-Region 9] Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on April 22, 2013. These revisions consist of significant updates to rules governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The intended effect of this proposed limited approval and limited disapproval action is to update the applicable SIP with current BAAQMD permitting rules and to set the stage for remedying certain deficiencies in these rules. If finalized as proposed, this limited disapproval action would trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless California submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies within two years of the final action, and for certain deficiencies the limited disapproval would also trigger sanctions under section 179 of the CAA unless California submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies within 18 months of final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, (415) 947-4156, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. What are the existing BAAQMD rules governing stationary source permits in the California SIP? C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? II. EPA's Evaluation A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? 1. Minor New Source Review Requirements 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements 3. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements 4. Section 110(l) of the Act 5. Section 189(e) of the Act 6. Section 193 of the Act III. Proposed Action and Public Comment IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    • The word or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    • The word or initials BAAQMD or District mean or refer to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

    • The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control Technology.

    • The words Bay Area mean or refer to the San Francisco Bay Area.

    • The initials CARB mean or refer to the California Air Resources Board.

    • The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations.

    • The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.

    • The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    • The initials ERC mean or refer to Emission Reduction Credit.

    • The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

    • The initials FR mean or refer to Federal Register.

    • The initials GHG mean or refer to greenhouse gases.

    • The initials IBR mean or refer to incorporation by reference.

    • The initials LAER mean or refer to Lowest Achievable Emission Rate.

    • The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    • The initials NO X mean or refer to oxides of nitrogen.

    • The initials NPOC mean or refer to non-precursor organic compound.

    • The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.

    • The initials PM 10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse particulate matter).

    • The initials PM 2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter).

    • The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

    • The initials PTE mean or refer to potential to emit

    • The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    • The initials SO 2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

    • The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support document for this action.

    • The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compound.

    I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    On April 22, 2013, CARB submitted amended rules, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 for approval as a revision to the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP under the CAA. Regulation 2 contains the District's air quality permitting programs. Regulation 2, Rule 1 contains general requirements that apply to all District air quality permitting programs. Regulation 2, Rule 2 contains the District's New Source Review (NSR) permit programs for both attainment and nonattainment pollutants. This SIP revision submittal represents a comprehensive revision to BAAQMD's preconstruction review and permitting program and is intended to satisfy the requirements of part C (PSD) and part D (nonattainment NSR) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction review requirements for minor sources 1 under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act.2 These preconstruction review and permitting programs are often collectively referred to as NSR.

    1 We note that any references to the term “source” in Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2, as well as in the District's other SIP rules, refer to the “emission unit” rather than the “stationary source.”

    2 Parts C and D of the federal Clean Air Act regulate the construction of new major stationary sources and major modifications. BAAQMD's NSR rules do not distinguish between major sources and major modifications in the same way as the federal Clean Air Act. Throughout this document, any references to major sources or major modifications means those new sources and modifications exceeding the major source and modification thresholds specified in the federal Clean Air Act.

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by BAAQMD and submitted to EPA by CARB, which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Regulation & Rule No. Rule title Adopted/Amended Submitted Regulation 2, Rule 1 (2-1) Permits, General Requirements 12/19/12 4/22/13 Regulation 2, Rule 2 (2-2) Permits, New Source Review 12/19/12 4/22/13

    On June 26, 2013, the April 22, 2013 submittal of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 was deemed to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. The submittal includes evidence of public notice and adoption of the amended rules. While we can act only on the most recently submitted version of each regulation (which supersedes earlier submitted versions), we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. Our TSD provides additional background information on our evaluation of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2.

    B. What are the existing BAAQMD rules governing stationary source permits in the California SIP?

    The existing SIP-approved NSR program for new or modified stationary sources in the Bay Area consists of the rules identified below in Table 2. Collectively, these rules establish the NSR requirements for both major and minor stationary sources under BAAQMD jurisdiction in California, including requirements for the generation and use of emission reduction credits in nonattainment areas.

    Consistent with the District's stated intent to have the submitted NSR rules replace the existing SIP-approved NSR program in its entirety, EPA's approval of the regulations identified above in Table 1 would have the effect of entirely superseding our prior approval of these two rules (including a prior approval of a single subsection) in the current SIP-approved program. Table 2 lists the existing rules in the California SIP governing NSR for stationary sources under BAAQMD jurisdiction.

    Table 2—Existing SIP Rules Governing NSR for Stationary Sources Under BAAQMD Jurisdiction Regulation & Rule No. & Section No. Rule title BAAQMD
  • adoption date
  • EPA
  • approval date
  • Federal
  • Register
  • citation
  • 2-1 Permits, General Requirements 11/1/1989 1/26/1999 64 FR 3850 2-1-429 Permits, General Requirements; Federal Emissions Statement 6/15/1994 4/3/1995 60 FR 16799 2-2 Permits, New Source Review 6/15/1994 1/26/1999 64 FR 3850
    C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the amended NSR rules submitted by CARB on April 22, 2013, as identified in Table 1. We provide our reasoning in general terms below but provide a more detailed analysis in our TSD, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    II. EPA's Evaluation A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    EPA has reviewed BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), part C of title I (sections 160 through 169) for the PSD program, and part D of title I (sections 172, 173, 182(a) and 189(e)) for the nonattainment NSR program. EPA also evaluated the rules for compliance with the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l), 193 and 302(z). In addition, EPA evaluated the submitted rules for consistency with the regulatory provisions of 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (Review of New Sources and Modifications) (i.e., 40 CFR 51.160-51.166) and 40 CFR 51.307.

    Among other things, section 110 of the Act requires that SIP rules be enforceable, and provides that EPA may not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other requirement of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of the Act require that each SIP or revision to a SIP submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires each SIP to include a program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the SIP as necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition to the permit programs required under parts C and D of title I of the Act for PSD and nonattainment NSR sources, respectively, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 provide general programmatic requirements to implement this statutory mandate commonly referred to as the “minor NSR program.”

    Part C of title I of the Act establishes the general statutory requirements for a PSD permit program. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.166 sets forth EPA's regulatory requirements for a SIP-approved PSD program. 40 CFR 52.21 is EPA's FIP containing regulatory requirements to implement a PSD program and its provisions may be incorporated by reference into a SIP-approved PSD program.

    Part D of title I of the Act contains certain procedural requirements for developing and revising SIPs, and establishes general statutory requirements for a nonattainment NSR permit program. Subpart 4 of part D of title I of the Act includes section 189(e), which requires the control of major stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence PM2.5 precursors) “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 [and PM2.5] levels which exceed the standard in the area.” Additionally, 40 CFR 51.165 sets forth EPA's regulatory requirements for SIP-approval of a nonattainment NSR permit program.

    Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a more detailed evaluation and discussion of the approval criteria. As described below, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted NSR rules.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, of a public hearing or notice of an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed revisions, and a public comment period of at least 30 days.

    Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the April 22, 2013 submittal, we find that the BAAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, and an opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.

    With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2, in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to: (1) General preconstruction review programs for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, (2) PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act, and (3) nonattainment NSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act. For the most part, the submitted NSR rules satisfy the applicable requirements for these three permit programs and will strengthen the applicable SIP by updating the rules and adding requirements to address new or revised NSR permitting provisions promulgated by EPA in the last several years. However, the submitted NSR rules also contain a few deficiencies which prevent full approval. Below, we discuss generally our evaluation of BAAQMD's submitted rules and the deficiencies that are the basis for our proposed limited disapproval of these rules. Our TSD contains a more detailed evaluation and recommendations for program improvements.

    1. Minor New Source Review Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each SIP include a program to provide for “regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D” of title I of the Act. Thus, in addition to the permit programs required in parts C and D of title I of the Act, which apply to new or modified major stationary sources of pollutants, each SIP must include a program to regulate the construction and modification of any stationary source within the area as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. These general pre-construction requirements are commonly referred to as “minor NSR” and are subject to EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 satisfy most of the statutory and regulatory requirements for minor NSR programs, but we have identified the following three deficiencies that form part of the basis for our proposed limited disapproval.

    First, the definition of “Agricultural Source” in section 2-1-239 and the provision concerning the loss of an exemption in section 2-1-424 cross-reference and rely on requirements in other District rules that are not approved in the SIP. Specifically, subsection 2-1-239.1 and section 2-1-424 rely on requirements in Regulation 2, Rule 10 (Large Confined Animal Facility Operations). In addition, subsection 2-1-239.3 relies on requirements in Regulation 2, Rule 6 (Major Facility),3 which is also not approved in the SIP. The District may resolve this deficiency by incorporating the specific threshold(s) or requirement(s) from these District rules into Regulation 2, Rule 1.

    3 Regulation 2, Rule 6 (Major Facility) contains the District Title V operating permit program.

    Second, section 2-2-308 specifies that the District's APCO shall not issue an Authority to Construct (ATC) for a new or modified emission unit or stationary source that will result in a “significant net increase” (i.e., a major modification) in emissions of any NAAQS pollutant unless the APCO determines that such increase will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS for that pollutant. Because this provision only prohibits issuance of an ATC for a source or project that will result in a “significant net increase” rather than any projects (i.e., both minor or major modifications) that would cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation, this provision does not satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(a) and is therefore deficient.

    Lastly, the rule submittal is deficient because it does not contain a prohibition on the issuance of an ATC if the project does not meet all applicable requirements of the control strategy as required in 40 CFR 51.160(a).

    Compared to the provisions in the existing SIP that are used to implement the minor NSR program, the submitted rule revisions represent an overall strengthening of BAAQMD's minor NSR program. For example, the rule revisions include: (1) more specific criteria for permit applications and conditions for permit issuance, (2) new provisions to prevent emissions from new or modified sources from causing or contributing to a violation of a NAAQS, (3) new provisions for public notification and comment for minor NSR projects that result in a significant net emission increase, and (4) new and revised provisions that clarify what new and modified sources are exempt from obtaining an ATC permit. Overall, we expect the submitted revisions will allow for more effective implementation and enforcement of the requirements applicable to minor stationary sources in the Bay Area.

    2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements

    Part C of title I of the Act contains the provisions for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas designated “attainment” or “unclassifiable” for the NAAQS, including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources or major modifications proposing to construct in such areas. EPA's regulations for PSD permit programs are found in 40 CFR 51.166. EPA's FIP implementing the PSD program in areas without a SIP-approved program is found at 40 CFR 52.21. BAAQMD is currently designated as “attainment” or “unclassifiable/attainment” for all NAAQS pollutants, except for the 2008 8-hour ozone (marginal) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 (moderate) NAAQS.

    Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 contain the requirements for review and permitting of PSD sources. Regulation 2, Rule 1 contains some general NSR definitions, the major modification applicability determination procedures, and certain administrative requirements that apply to the issuance of all permits covered under Regulation 2, including PSD permits. Regulation 2, Rule 2 contains most of the NSR and PSD definitions, and all of the substantive and administrative requirements for review of PSD permit applications and for the approval of PSD permits. These rules satisfy most of the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs, thus forming part of the basis for our limited approval. However, these rules also contain four deficiencies that form part of the basis for our proposed limited disapproval, as discussed below.

    First, subsection 2-1-234.2.2 provides an adequate definition of major modification by incorporating 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2) by reference. However, the second sentence of section 2-1-234.2 attempts to satisfy these requirements by incorporating by reference the substantive requirements of the PSD applicability procedures for determining if a project will result in a major modification. (See 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)) The BAAQMD rules cannot incorporate 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7) by reference because it consists of instructions to the State and not requirements for an applicant seeking a PSD permit. When provisions are incorporated by reference, the exact wording of the provision is read into the text of the rule. Therefore, the text of 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7) does not contain the necessary wording to require a source to perform the calculations required by the PSD applicability procedures in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7). Similarly, the recordkeeping provisions required when projected actual emissions are used to determine emission increases are set forth in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6) and (r)(7). For the same reason, these provisions cannot be incorporated by reference. These deficiencies may be resolved by incorporating by reference the provisions contained in 40 CFR 52.21 for specifying the applicability procedures, applicable definitions, and recordkeeping requirements.

    Second, the definition of “PSD Pollutant” in section 2-2-223 begins by referencing EPA's definition of a regulated NSR pollutant in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50). However, section 2-2-223 then excludes from the definition any pollutants for which the Bay Area has been designated as nonattainment for a NAAQS. Excluding nonattainment pollutants conflicts with the federal definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) which includes all NAAQS pollutants, regardless of attainment status. Because this definition is used for determining whether a source is a “Major PSD Facility,” as defined in subsection 2-2-224.1, the rule is deficient for PSD applicability purposes. A stationary source is considered a major stationary source if any pollutant emitted by the source exceeds the applicable major source thresholds (100 or 250 tpy), regardless of the area's designation.4 Additionally, since the definition of “PSD Pollutant” is used for determining whether a modification to a stationary source is a “PSD Project” pursuant to section 2-2-224, we also find that section 2-2-224 is deficient. To resolve this deficiency, the District may remove the exclusion of nonattainment pollutants from the definition of “PSD Pollutant” or address applicability as it relates to nonattainment pollutants in determining whether a source is a “Major PSD Facility” in subsection 2-2-224.1.

    4 While 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) provides that the PSD program requirements contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) need not apply to nonattainment pollutants, PSD major source applicability must be determined for all regulated NSR pollutants, as defined in 51.166(b)(49), which includes all pollutants for which a NAAQS has been promulgated.

    Third, the air quality analysis and modeling requirements in subsection 2-2-305.3 provide that where an air quality model specified in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models) is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model substituted upon written approval by the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) after public notice and opportunity for public comment under the procedures set forth in section 2-2-404. This provision is deficient because subsection 3.2.2 of 40 CFR 51, appendix W, regarding the use of alternative models, requires written approval by the Administrator prior to using any modification or substitution of a model, and subsection 2-2-305.3 does not require this approval. The District may resolve this deficiency by revising subsection 2-2-305.3 such that it requires approval by the EPA, as well as the APCO.

    Finally, the fugitive emission calculation procedure in Section 2-2-611 provides that fugitive emissions shall be included only if the facility is in one of the 28 source categories listed in section 169(1) of the Act. However, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(iii)(aa) includes an additional source category: “any other stationary source category which, as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act.” Therefore, we find that Regulation 2, Rule 2 is deficient for PSD purposes because it does not require fugitive emissions from all listed source categories.

    Although BAAQMD's existing SIP rules in Regulation 2, Rule 2 contained certain PSD-related provisions, the District has never had a SIP-approved PSD permitting program. The BAAQMD has been conducting PSD evaluations and issuing PSD permits under a delegation agreement between the District and the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u).5 Accordingly, the applicable requirements governing the issuance of PSD permits in the BAAQMD are currently the FIP implementing the PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA's approval of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 into the California SIP, if finalized, will give the District a SIP-approved PSD permit program.

    5 On June 21, 2004, the EPA issued a PSD delegation agreement, which was updated on January 20, 2006, February 4, 2008, and March 9, 2011.

    Approval of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 represents an overall strengthening of BAAQMD's SIP rules because it includes updated PSD provisions, is mostly consistent with EPA's requirements in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.166, and results in a SIP-approved PSD program to regulate new or modified major stationary sources of attainment or unclassifiable NAAQS pollutants.

    3. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements

    Part D of title I of the Act contains the general requirements for areas designated “nonattainment” for a NAAQS, including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources or major modifications proposing to construct in such nonattainment areas, commonly referred to as “Nonattainment New Source Review” or “NSR.” EPA's regulations for NSR permit programs are found in 40 CFR 51.165. BAAQMD is currently designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone (marginal) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 (moderate) NAAQS.6 (See 40 CFR 81.305.)

    6 The BAAQMD was designated nonattainment of both the 1-hour ozone (moderate) and 1997 8-hour ozone (marginal) NAAQS at the time those standards were revoked. While BAAQMD is no longer “designated” nonattainment for these two revoked standards, certain requirements based on these previous designations may still apply if those requirements are more stringent than those imposed under the current nonattainment designations.

    Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 contain the NSR requirements for review and permitting of major sources and major modifications located in the Bay Area. Similar to the District's PSD program, Regulation 2, Rule 1 contains some general NSR definitions, the major modification applicability procedures, and certain administrative requirements that apply to the issuance of all permits covered under Regulation 2, including major nonattainment NSR permits. Regulation 2, Rule 2 contains most of the NSR-specific definitions, and most of the substantive and administrative requirements for review of major nonattainment NSR applications and for the approval of these permits. These rules satisfy most of the statutory and regulatory requirements for NSR permit programs, thus forming part of the basis for our limited approval. However, these rules also contain seven deficiencies that form part of the basis for our proposed limited disapproval, as discussed below.

    First, the language in subsection 2-1-234.2.1 for nonattainment pollutants fails for the same reasons discussed above for the PSD program. Specifically, while it is appropriate to incorporate 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v) by reference, the second sentence of this subsection cannot incorporate the applicability procedures in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2) by reference because it provides direction to States rather than to applicants seeking a nonattainment NSR permit. For the same reason, the recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) cannot be incorporated by reference. These deficiencies may be resolved by including the specific requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2), as well as (a)(6), and (a)(7). Our TSD has a further discussion of this issue and potential remedies.

    Second, subsection 2-2-401.4 requires any application for a new major stationary source or major modification located in or within 100 km of a Class I area, to provide an analysis of potential impacts to air quality related values (including visibility) for each affected Class I area. However, Regulation 2, Rule 2 is deficient because it only requires a visibility analysis for sources that are located within 100 km of a Class I area, rather than for any source that “may have an impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal Area,” as required by 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). The NSR program must include this requirement as it pertains to any new major stationary source or major modification subject to nonattainment NSR permitting.

    Third, subsection 2-2-411.2, pertaining to offset refunds, allows the District to provide an “offset refund” to a stationary source if excess offsets were provided at the time of permit issuance or for an emission unit that has not been constructed (or is constructed but never operated) and for which offsets have been provided. The provision does not specify a time after which a stationary source can no longer obtain an offset refund. It would not be appropriate to allow a source to request such a refund years after the project has been completed or canceled. To correct this deficiency, BAAQMD must remove this provision or amend the rule to provide an appropriate timeframe for obtaining an offset refund.

    Fourth, the “Demonstration of NOX and POC Offset Program Equivalence” required by section 2-2-412 is deficient because it does not provide a remedy if the District fails to make the required demonstration. BAAQMD must add a remedy provision, and identify a deadline to eliminate any offset shortfall if the District's Small Facility Banking Account does not contain sufficient surplus emission reductions to demonstrate that Rule 2 provides offset program equivalence. Such a remedy, at a minimum must provide that the offsets for any new or modified major stationary source must comply with all federal offset criteria, rather than the offset criteria provided in the rule, until equivalence is re-established.

    Fifth, subsection 2-2-605.2 is deficient because it allows existing “fully-offset” sources to generate ERCs based on the difference between the post-modification PTE and the surplus adjusted pre-modification PTE. ERCs intended to be used as offsets for emissions from new major sources or major modifications are only creditable if they are reductions of actual emissions, consistent with the requirement in CAA section 173(c)(1), not reductions in the PTE of the source. To resolve this deficiency, BAAQMD may revise the calculation method for “fully offset” sources to be the same as for sources that are not “fully offset”. Alternatively, BAAQMD may add provisions to differentiate between state and federally compliant ERCs (i.e., ERCs based on actual emission reductions) and provide that new major sources and major modifications must use federally compliant ERCs.

    Sixth, subsection 2-2-606.2 is deficient as it applies to major modifications because it allows “fully-offset” sources to calculate the emission increases from a proposed modification based on the difference between the post-modification PTE and pre-modification adjusted PTE. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) requires that offsets must be provided for the actual increase in emissions from a major modification based on an actual to PTE emissions increase test. BAAQMD may resolve this deficiency by developing separate procedures based on the difference between the allowable emissions (i.e. PTE) after the modification and the actual emissions before the modification for calculating the quantity of offsets required for an emission unit or modification subject to the major NSR preconstruction review requirements. Alternatively, BAAQMD may revise the offset equivalency provisions of Section 2-2-412 to track the difference in the quantity of offsets required under the rule and as required by the CAA, and demonstrate that in the aggregate, an equivalent amount of offsets are provided. We note that if the District addresses this deficiency in section 2-2-412, offsets must be addressed for PM2.5 and the PM2.5 precursors (NOX and SO2) in addition to the ozone precursors already addressed in this provision.

    Finally, for the same reasons stated above in our evaluation of the PSD program, we find that section 2-2-611 of Regulation 2, Rule 2 is deficient because it does not require fugitive emissions from all listed source categories to be included when determining major source applicability for major nonattainment NSR review.

    Compared to the provisions in the existing SIP, the submitted rule revisions represent an overall strengthening of BAAQMD's nonattainment NSR program. For example, the rule revisions include: (1) Incorporation of new requirements (e.g., District BACT (equivalent to federal LAER), offsets, and emissions measurement methods for regulating PM2.5 emissions and the applicable PM2.5 precursors,7 (2) new requirements for ensuring protection of air quality related values in Class I areas, (3) specific calculation procedures for determining if a project will result in a major modification, and (4) several minor revisions that clarify definitions of important NSR terms, and substantive and administrative procedures consistent with EPA's requirements in 40 CFR 51.165.

    7 As discussed below in section II.B.5 and in our TSD, with respect to the PM2.5 precursors applicable to the Bay Area, the District's current SIP-approved rule already included BACT provisions in section 2-2-302 for VOC, NOX and SO2. Additionally, the rule already included offset requirements for VOC and NOX, and the District incorporated new offset provisions in section 2-2-303 for SO2.

    4. Section 110(l) of the Act

    We are proposing to find that Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and parts C and D of title I of the Act. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that each SIP revision submitted by a State shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. It also states that the Administrator shall not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA applicable requirement.

    With respect to the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l), based on our review of the public process documentation included in the April 22, 2013 SIP submittal package, we find that BAAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA. See the TSD for additional details.

    With respect to the substantive requirements of section 110(l), we have determined that our approval of the BAAQMD NSR SIP submittal, as described in more detail in our TSD, represents a strengthening of BAAQMD's NSR program as compared to the District's current SIP-approved NSR program that was approved on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3850), and that our limited approval of this SIP submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Therefore we are proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of the BAAQMD SIP revision under section 110(l) of the Act.

    5. Section 189(e) of the Act

    CAA title I, Part D, subpart 4 includes section 189(e), which requires the control of major stationary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 precursors “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” The provisions of subpart 4, do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM2.5, nor does subpart 4 explicitly require the control of any specifically identified particulate matter precursor. The statutory definition of “air pollutant,” however, provides that the term “includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.” (See CAA section 302(g)) The EPA has identified the main precursor gases associated with PM2.5 formation as SO2, NOX, VOC, and ammonia. Accordingly, the nonattainment NSR permit program for PM2.5 presumptively must apply to emissions of all four precursors listed above, and direct PM2.5, when emitted from major sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD's revisions to Regulation 2, Rule 2 regulate SO2, NOX and VOC, but not ammonia.

    With respect to VOC and NOX emissions, both new and modified sources of these emissions are subject to BAAQMD's BACT requirements (equivalent to federal LAER) at a 10 lb/day emission rate threshold under its nonattainment NSR program. Also, Section 2-2-302 of the District's revised Rule 2 requires VOC and NOX emissions to be offset at a 1:1 ratio for any facility with a PTE greater than 10 tpy but less than 35 tpy of NOX or VOC, and a 1:1.15 ratio for any facility with a PTE of 35 tpy or more of NOX or VOC. These applicability thresholds are well below the BACT and offset thresholds of 100 tpy for new sources and 40 tpy for major modifications that would be required under federal requirements for a PM2.5 precursor. The offset ratio for sources with a PTE of 35 tpy or more is also higher than the 1:1 offset ratio required federally for PM2.5 precursors. In addition, Regulation 2, Rule 2, also requires BACT (equivalent to federal LAER) and offsets for major sources and modifications of SO2 in sections 2-2-301 and 2-2-303.

    Because Regulation 2, Rule 2 contains control and offset requirements for VOC, NOX and SO2 that are consistent with, or more stringent than, the federal nonattainment NSR requirements for those PM2.5 precursors, we are proposing to approve Regulation 2, Rule 2 as satisfying the requirements of CAA section 189(e) for VOC, NOX and SO2.

    The only PM2.5 precursor that is not regulated by Regulation 2 is ammonia, which the BAAQMD has excluded. In reviewing any determination of the State (in this case the BAAQMD) to exclude a PM2.5 precursor (in this case ammonia) from the required evaluation of potential nonattainment NSR applicability and regulation, the EPA considers both the magnitude of the precursor's contribution to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that precursor.8 To determine if the District appropriately excluded ammonia emissions from the requirements of Regulation 2, Rule 2, EPA is relying primarily on three sources of information: (1) The District's December 22, 2014 letter regarding compliance with PM2.5 precursor requirements in CAA Title I, Part D, Subpart 4 (District 189(e) letter); (2) the District's July 15, 2015 letter regarding the quantity of ammonia emitted from major sources compared to the overall ammonia emission inventory (District EI letter); and (3) EPA's PM2.5 Clean Data Determination for the BAAQMD, published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2013 (78 FR 1760) (CDD).

    8 80 FR 1816, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; (Proposed Rule), January 13, 2015, page 1822. 80 FR 24281, Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits; May 1, 2015.

    First, the District's EI letter indicates that the magnitude of actual ammonia emissions from major sources in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin is small. There are only three major sources of ammonia emissions (i.e., 100 tpy or greater of actual ammonia emissions). These three major sources contribute 686 tpy of ammonia emissions while all sources of ammonia in the Bay Area Air Basin emit 12,407 tpy. The relative contribution of the existing major sources to the overall ammonia emissions in the area, therefore, is 5.5 percent.

    Second, the District's 189(e) letter states that the District evaluated the impacts that ammonia emissions within the Bay Area may have on secondary particulate matter formation. The District conducted a modeling study in 2009 to evaluate this issue, and based on that study the District concluded that ammonia was not a significant contributor to secondary particulate matter formation that warranted inclusion in the District's NSR program at the time of the study.9 This study showed the ammonia emissions are predominately from area sources. Modeling results from the study showed that a 20 percent reduction in ammonia emissions (around 15 tons per day) would reduce secondary PM2.5 levels by an average of 2 percent.

    9 See BAAQMD's Fine Particulate Matter Data Analysis and Modeling in the Bay Area, Research and Modeling Section Publication No. 200910-004-PM, October 2009.

    Third, based on EPA's PM2.5 Clean Data Determination, EPA has determined that the Bay Area is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    As noted above, section 189(e) of the Act requires nonattainment NSR to apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to [PM2.5] levels which exceed the standard in the area.” Given the relatively small amount of ammonia emissions from major point sources, the District's 2009 modeling analysis showing that ammonia was not a significant contributor to secondary particulate matter formation and the fact that the BAAQMD is currently attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, we are proposing to conclude that the PM2.5 impacts from major stationary sources of ammonia emissions are insignificant and do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Bay Area nonattainment area. Therefore, this requirement is satisfied.

    6. Section 193 of the Act

    Section 193 of the Act, which was added by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, includes a savings clause which provides, in pertinent part: “No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.”

    We have reviewed the provisions included in BAAQMD's NSR SIP submittal and find that they would ensure equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to the current SIP-approved NSR program. The BACT and offset requirements, which are the primary control requirements of a NSR program, are equivalent or more stringent in the submitted rules as are contained in the existing SIP approved NSR rules. Therefore, we can approve the submitted NSR program under section 193 of the Act. Our TSD contains a more detailed evaluation.

    III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Because the rule deficiencies described above are inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, EPA cannot grant full approval of this rule under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted rules. We are proposing to approve the submitted rules based on our determination that the most of the rules satisfy the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions governing regulation of stationary sources under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), including the permitting requirements for major stationary sources in parts C and D of title I of the Act. In support of this proposed action, we have concluded that our limited approval of the submitted rules would comply with sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act because the amended rules as a whole would not interfere with continued attainment of the NAAQS in the Bay Area, and do not relax control technology and offset requirements. We recommend limited disapproval to correct the deficiencies listed above. The intended effect of our proposed limited approval and limited disapproval action is to update the applicable SIP with current BAAQMD rules and to set the stage for remedying the rule deficiencies. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action would be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220 (identification of plan).

    If finalized as proposed, our limited disapproval action would trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless the deficiencies are corrected, and EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action. Additionally, for those deficiencies that relate to the nonattainment NSR requirements under part D of title I of the Act, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the Bay Area nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of a final limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if California submits and we approve, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies that we identify in our final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 1 (Permits, General Requirements) and BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 (Permits, New Source Review) which are discussed in section I.A. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

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

    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 19, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21401 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 167 Friday, August 28, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision and Extension of Approved Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery August 25, 2015. AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information, please contact Ruth Brown (202) 720-8958 or Charlene Parker (202) 720-8681.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    The Agency received one comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register of June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31569).

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—0579-0377

    Current Actions: Revision and Extension of Currently Approved Collection.

    Type of Review: Revision and Extension..

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Average Expected Annual Number of activities: 29.

    Respondents: 17,000.

    Annual responses: 17,000.

    Frequency of Response: Once per request.

    Average minutes per response: 0.25.

    Burden hours: 17,500.

    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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21331 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Superior National Forest, Minnesota; School Trust Land Exchange AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose and need for the land exchange is: the Superior National Forest would acquire land inside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) from the Minnesota School Trust with outstanding wilderness/scenic/recreational opportunities, which will consolidate ownership and eliminate the risk of development or uses incompatible with wilderness values and management. The federal land located outside the BWCAW conveyed to the Minnesota School Trust would allow the State to manage lands outside the wilderness to generate revenue to benefit the Minnesota public school system.

    In February 2015, a scoping process for this project was initiated by the Forest Supervisor. The scoping period lasted until May 15, 2015 and included notification to a wide range of interested persons, adjacent landowners, state, local and tribal government, and organizations. In addition, five open houses were held in the project area and Saint Paul, MN. Over 1,600 comment letters were received from interested persons, adjacent landowners, state, local and tribal government, and organizations. Upon review of scoping comments, the Forest Supervisor decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

    While further scoping comments will be accepted, it is anticipated that the scoping comments already received have thoroughly described the range of issues of interest to the public, agencies, organizations and governments. Scoping comments already received during the February-May 2015 scoping period are being considered, are part of the project record, and will provide standing to object per requirements of 36 CFR 218.

    DATES:

    Any additional comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by September 30, 2015. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected January 2016, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected September 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Brenda Halter, Forest Supervisor, RE: School Trust Land Exchange EIS, at 8901 Grand Avenue Place, Duluth, MN 55808. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected] or via facsimile to (218) 626-4398.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Taylor, Forest Environmental Coordinator, at (218) 626-4368 or [email protected] Go to www.fs.usda.gov/goto/superior/projects and navigate to the School Trust Land Exchange Web page for the scoping information on this project. The scoping information on the Web page is the same as that available during the February-May 2015 scoping period.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action Inside the BWCAW

    The Superior National Forest would acquire land with outstanding wilderness/scenic/recreational opportunities, which will consolidate ownership and eliminate the risk of development or uses incompatible with wilderness values and management. This exchange is part of the long term strategy for acquiring all county and state lands in the BWCAW to resolve the long standing issue of wilderness restrictions limiting use of nonfederal lands. The acquisition of these lands is considered Priority 1 under Forest Plan Guideline G-LA-2 (p. 2-51).

    Outside the BWCAW

    The exchange would meet Forest Plan Land Adjustment Goal G-LA-5 (p. 2-52) for acquisition of Minnesota State School Trust Lands in the BWCAW through land exchange. This exchange has the potential to reduce and/or eliminate over 30 complex special use permits/easements reducing the cost of special use permit administration on the Forest. The authorized activities would continue but would be managed by the State. This would meet the intent of Forest Plan Guideline G-LA-3(e) (p. 2-52).

    The conveyance of Federal land would reduce boundary management and landline costs. Federal parcels proposed for exchange were specifically identified to consolidate federal and state ownership patterns. This would meet the intent of Forest Plan Guideline G-LA-3(d) (p. 2-52).

    The land conveyed would allow the State to actively manage lands outside the wilderness to generate revenue to benefit the MN public school system. The State would manage the conveyed land to provide for a wide variety of goods, uses and services similar to management under federal ownership. This would meet the intent of Forest Plan Guideline G-LA-3(b) (p. 2-52).

    Proposed Action

    The Forest Service proposes to exchange federal lands of equal value from a pool of approximately 39,075 acres for approximately 30,000 acres of State lands. The final acres to be exchanged would reflect equal market values based on an appraisal compliant with federal standards. The possibility that all of the federal land will be necessary or that the federal land list will be inadequate is relatively low.

    The Forest Service would also transfer authority and administration of special use permits located within the federal parcels to the Minnesota DNR. Many of these permits and easements involve both short and long-term authorizations for roads and trails, phone lines, electrical lines, fiber optics, and a county canister transfer station. These permits are located across the Forest and are administered by five ranger districts.

    The State Constitution requires the State to reserve mineral rights in an exchange of School Trust lands. (Minn. Const. Art. XI Section 10.) The United States would reserve mineral rights on the 150 parcels where federal minerals occur.

    Preliminary Issues

    Consideration of issues raised in scoping comments will be documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

    Possible Alternatives

    Consideration of alternatives raised in scoping comments will be documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

    Responsible Official

    Forest Supervisor, Superior National Forest.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to exchange federal lands of equal value from a pool of approximately 39,075 acres for approximately 30,000 acres of State lands. The decision will include:

    1. What actions would be used to address the purpose and need;

    2. Where and when those actions would take place;

    3. Any other actions that would be required.

    Scoping Process

    In February 2015, a scoping process for this project was initiated by the Forest Supervisor. The scoping period lasted until May 15, 2015 and included notification to a wide range of interested persons, adjacent landowners, state, local and tribal government, and organizations. In addition, five open houses were held in the project area and Saint Paul, MN. Over 1,600 comment letters were received from interested persons, adjacent landowners, state, local and tribal government, and organizations. Upon review of scoping comments, the Forest Supervisor decided to prepare an EIS.

    While further scoping comments will be accepted, it is anticipated that the scoping comments already received have thoroughly described the range of issues of interest to the public, agencies, organizations and governments. Scoping comments already received during the February-May 2015 scoping period are being considered, are part of the project record, and will provide standing to object per requirements of 36 CFR 218.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondsent with notification of subsequent environmental documents.

    The School Trust Land Exchange decision is subject to objections following Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Only individuals or organizations who submit timely and specific written comments as defined at 36 CFR 218.2 regarding the proposed project during a public comment period established by the Responsible Official are eligible to file an objection to the School Trust Land Exchange. Scoping comments already received during the February-May 2015 scoping period provide commenters with standing to object per requirements of 36 CFR 218.2. The opportunity to object will be provided when a draft decision on the project is published.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Brenda Halter, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20834 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas State Advisory Committee for the Purpose of Planning Project Activity AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement 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 (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas State Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Friday, September 18, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of planning projects on school discipline and voting rights.

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-503-8169, conference ID: 5785668. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments in the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by October 28, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angelica Trevino, Civil Rights Analyst, Western Regional Office, at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information should contact the Western Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437, (or for hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by email to [email protected] Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the 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 http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=276 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, 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 Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda:

    1:30 p.m.—Discussion of project proposal on school discipline and voting rights project 2:30 p.m.—Public comment Adjournment DATES:

    Friday, September 18, 2015,

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or [email protected]

    Dated August 25, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21370 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The NAC will address census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs. The NAC will meet in a plenary session on October 8-9, 2015. Last-minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committee's Web site for the most current meeting agenda at: http://www.census.gov/cac/.

    DATES:

    October 8-9, 2015. On October 8, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. On October 9, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 1:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Collier, Assistant Division Chief for Stakeholders, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, [email protected], Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H185, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-6590. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NAC comprises up to thirty-two members. The Committee provides an organized and continuing channel of communication between race, ethnic, and other populations and the Census Bureau. The Committee advises the Director of the Census Bureau on the full range of economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral, and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)).

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on October 9. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “October 2015 NAC Meeting Public Comment”), or by letter submission to the Committee Liaison Officer, October 2015 NAC Meeting, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H185, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, October 5. You may access the online registration from the following link (please use Mozilla Firefox as your browser): https://www.regonline.com/nac_oct2015_meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee point of contact as soon as possible, preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21330 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-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: Annual Survey of School System Finances.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0700.

    Form Number(s): F-33, F-33-L1, F-33-L2, F-33-L3.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 3,709.

    Average Hours per Response: 1.02 hours.

    Burden Hours: 3,789.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), requests an extension of approval for the Annual Survey of School System Finances, OMB Number 0607-0700. The Census Bureau's collection of school district finance data and associated publications are the most comprehensive sources for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 finance data.

    These data are collected from the universe of school districts using uniform definitions and concepts of revenue, expenditure, debt, and assets as defined by the Financial Accounting for Local and State School Systems. This survey and the Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances (OMB No. 0607-0585) are conducted as part of the Census Bureau's State and Local Government Finance program. Data collected from cities, counties, states, and special district governments are combined with data collected from local school systems to produce state and national totals of government spending. Local school system spending comprises a significant portion of total government spending. In 2012, public elementary-secondary expenditures accounted for 33.6 percent of local government spending.

    This comprehensive and ongoing, time series collection of local education agency finances maintains historical continuity in the state and local government statistics community. Elementary-secondary education related spending is the single largest financial activity of state and local governments. Education finance statistics provided by the Census Bureau allow for analyses of how public elementary-secondary school systems receive and spend funds. Increased focus on education has led to a demand for data reflecting student performance, graduation rates, and school finance policy—all of which are related to the collection of this local education finance data. State legislatures, local leaders, university researchers, and parents increasingly rely on data to make substantive decisions about education. School district finance is a vital sector of the education data spectrum used by stakeholders to form policy and to develop new education strategies.

    The Census Bureau uses an announcement letter and form to collect state and local government public education finance data. We mail the letter electronically to respondents at the beginning of each survey period soliciting the assistance of the state education agencies (SEAs) in providing data centrally for their public school systems. The letter officially announces the opening of the collection period and requests administrative data, such as estimated date of submission, changes to reporting format from prior year, and updated contact information for the state coordinator. Census Bureau staff use the response to this letter to plan for the processing of state education agency data submissions. The form (F-33) contains the elementary-secondary education finance items. In practice, this form serves more as a data processing guide rather than as a data collection instrument. The Census Bureau relies heavily on collecting this public school system finance data centrally from state education agencies. All states provide significant amounts of these data centrally to the Census Bureau via the Internet using File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Supplemental forms are sent to school systems in states where the state education agency cannot provide information on assets (F-33-L1), indebtedness (F-33-L2), or both (F-33-L3).

    The Census Bureau facilitates central collection by accepting states' data in one of two formats. Currently, 21 states provide the Census Bureau electronic copies of state-specific detailed education finance data files. The Census Bureau maintains programs for converting these data from the state agency format to the Census Bureau F-33 format. Thirty states reformat state-specific data files into the Census Bureau's format prior to submitting the data electronically to the Census Bureau.

    The education finance data collected and processed by the Census Bureau are an essential component of the agency's state and local government finance collection and provide unique products for users of education finance data.

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses data from the survey to develop figures for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). F-33 data items specifically contribute to the estimates for National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), Input-Output accounts (I-O), and gross domestic investments. BEA also uses the data to assess other public fiscal spending trends and events.

    The Census Bureau's Government Finances program has disseminated comprehensive and comparable public fiscal data since 1902. School finance data, which comprised 33.6 percent of all local government spending in 2012, is currently incorporated into the local government statistics reported on the Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances. The report contains benchmark statistics on public revenue, expenditure, debt, and assets. They are widely used by economists, legislators, social and political scientists, and government administrators.

    The Census Bureau makes available detailed files for all school systems from its Internet Web site, www.census.gov/govs/school. That Web site currently contains data files and statistical tables for the 1992 through 2012 fiscal year surveys. Historical files and publications prior to 1992 are also available upon request for data users engaged in longitudinal studies. In addition to numerous academic researchers who use F-33 products, staff receive inquiries from state government officials, legislatures, public policy analysts, local school officials, non-profit organizations, and various Federal agencies.

    The NCES use these annual data as part of the Common Core of Data (CCD) program. The education finance data collected by the Census Bureau are the sole source of school district fiscal information for the CCD. NCES data users utilize electronic tools to search CCD databases for detailed fiscal and non-fiscal variables. Additionally, NCES uses F-33 education finance files to publish annual reports on the fiscal state of education.

    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal government.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., sections 8(b), 161 and 182; and title 20 U.S.C., sections 9543-44.

    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 24, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21286 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-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: National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST).

    Title: SURF (Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship) Program Student Information Application.

    OMB Control Number: 0693-0042.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular Submission (renewal with changes of currently approved information collection instrument).

    Number of Respondents: 650.

    Average Hours Per Response: 1 hour.

    Burden Hours: 650.

    Needs and Uses: The SURF Program provides an opportunity for the NIST laboratories to encourage outstanding undergraduate students to pursue careers in science and engineering. The program also provides research opportunities for students to work with internationally known NIST scientists, to expose them to cutting-edge research, and promote the pursuit of graduate degrees in science and engineering. This is a request to revise the previously, approved information collection, as NIST will be consolidating two “collection instruments” into one application for both Gaithersburg and Boulder locations.

    The purpose of this collection is to gather information requested on behalf of the NIST SURF Program for both Gaithersburg and Boulder locations. The information is submitted by the university on behalf of the student applicants. The student information is utilized by laboratory program coordinators and technical evaluators to determine student eligibility, select students to appropriate research projects, which match their needs, interests, and academic preparation, and ultimately, make offers to participate in the program. The information includes: Student name, host institution, email address/contact information, permanent address, choice of SURF-specific location (Boulder and/or Gaithersburg), class standing, research preference for NIST laboratories/projects they wish to apply to (for Boulder, 6 project choices and for Gaithersburg, 2 laboratory choices), previous SURF participation/mentor identification, academic major/minor, current overall GPA, need for housing and gender (for housing purposes only), special skills (laboratory, computer programming etc.), availability dates, resume, personal statement of commitment and research interests, two letters of recommendation, academic transcripts, ability to verify U.S. citizenship or permanent legal residency, acknowledgement of housing request, background check, and requirements for REAL ID Act.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21307 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 150813711-5711-01] Cryogenic Flow Meter Calibrations: Request for Information and Notice of Public Workshop AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, plans to discontinue the operation of its Cryogenic Flow Measurement Facility (Facility), located on NIST's campus in Boulder, Colorado, on September 30, 2015. NIST publishes this notice to request information on the industry's interest and needs in (1) cryogenic flow calibrations, (2) research areas of mutual interest to advance cryogenic flow calibrations, and (3) the re-establishment of the Facility at a different location. NIST will hold a public workshop to discuss these issues on Monday, September 28, 2015, on NIST's campus in Boulder, Colorado. Members of the public may register to participate in the public workshop in person or virtually by web conferencing.

    DATES:

    NIST will accept responses to this request for information until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28, 2015. No proprietary information should be included in the written responses to this request for information. The public workshop will be held on Monday, September 28, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time. Interested parties must register to participate in the public workshop by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 25, 2015. Please see the registration instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written responses to this request for information should be submitted to Dr. Michael Moldover, Sensor Science Division of the Physical Measurement Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8440, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, or by electronic mail to [email protected] The public workshop will be held at NIST's campus in Boulder, Colorado, which is located at 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, in Building 81, Room 81-1A116. Registration will be available online at http://www.nist.gov/allevents.cfm. Please note the campus admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, please contact Dr. Michael Moldover by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8440, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, or by electronic mail to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIST's Cryogenic Flow Measurement Facility (Facility), located on NIST's campus in Boulder, Colorado, provides the public with the service of calibrating and testing flow meters using a closed loop liquid-nitrogen flow system. The Facility uses a dynamic weighing system to measure liquid mass and to calculate total mass and volume flow rates through a meter under test conditions. All measurements are traceable to the International System of Units using standards maintained at NIST. Upon completion of a meter calibration, NIST provides the customer with a final report, tabulated data, and plots summarizing the results.

    The Facility has been in operation at NIST for nearly fifty years under the NIST Quality System (in conformance with ISO/TEC 17025). The calibration of cryogenic flow meters is listed among the NIST Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMC) within the key comparison database (KCDB) of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). While it provides an important and unique service, NIST plans to discontinue the operation of the Cryogenic Flow Measurement Facility in Boulder at the end of September 2015. The Facility's current location will be used for NIST's new Communication Technology Laboratory.

    The purpose of this request for information is to determine the level of interest and the needs of the industry for this type of calibration service. NIST is seeking information that responds to the questions listed below.

    (1) What is your opinion of the quality and utility of the calibration services performed by the Facility?

    (2) What are the benefits of continuing the calibration services?

    (3) What are your ideas about how to collaborate with members of the industry or research organizations to further the research efforts in the field of cryogenic flow measurement, including the development of methods to allow cryogenic flow meters to be calibrated at room temperatures?

    (4) What is your opinion of the creation of a new research consortium for cryogenic flow measurement that would be led by NIST?

    (5) What is your opinion of the current or future need for the development of dynamic weighing techniques for the calibration of cryogenic flow meters beyond what is currently used by industry?

    (6) What is your opinion about whether the Facility should be re-established, either at NIST's campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland, or at a different location?

    Multiple responses from the same organization are permitted. No business proprietary information should be included in any correspondence to NIST in response to this request for information. NIST will not treat any information provided in response to this request for information as proprietary information. Any information received by NIST in response to this request may be used to communicate with the responders regarding future projects.

    Public Workshop: NIST will hold a public workshop to lead an open discussion with participants regarding the questions listed above. The meeting will be held at NIST's campus in Boulder, Colorado on Monday, September 28, 2015. Participants may attend the public workshop in person or may participate virtually via web conferencing. All participants who wish to attend in person are required to register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 25, 2015, at http://www.nist.gov/allevents.cfm. There is no registration fee. NIST will provide registered participants with information about how to access NIST's campus in Boulder, Colorado to attend in person and how to access the web conference to participate virtually. For participants attending in person, please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information, please contact Arvella Musselman at (301) 975-2165 or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Richard Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21287 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE123 Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the availability of the “Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DPEA) for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC).” Publication of this notice begins the official public comment period for this DPEA. The purpose of the DPEA is to evaluate, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research along the U.S. West Coast, including the Northern California Large Marine Ecosystem (NCLME), Puget Sound, and the Lower Columbia River Research Area (LCRRA).

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the DPEA should be addressed to Kurt Fresh, Manager, Estuarine and Ocean Ecology Program, NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. The mailbox address for providing physical comments is 2725 Montlake Boulevard, East Seattle, WA 98112. The email address is [email protected] NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here.

    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kurt Fresh, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, (206) 860-3200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability

    An electronic copy of the DPEA may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by visiting the internet at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/incidental_take_NOA. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

    Background

    The NWFSC is the research arm of NMFS in the Northwest Region of the Continental United States. The NWFSC conducts research and provides scientific advice to manage fisheries and conserve protected species in the Pacific Ocean (primarily the Continental Shelf Region of the Pacific Coast), Puget Sound, and Lower Columbia River Estuary (below Bonneville Dam). Research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, survival and biological rates, abundance and geographic distribution of species and stocks, and providing other scientific information needed to improve our understanding of complex marine ecological processes. Primary research activities include: Studies of early marine life and mortality processes of juvenile Pacific salmonids, bottom trawl surveys to support assessments of multiple groundfish species, stock assessments of Pacific hake, studies to support salmon recovery efforts in Puget Sound and the Columbia River Estuary, telemetry studies of numerous species, and extensive cooperative research projects designed to address current or emerging information needs of the commercial fishing industry such as bycatch reduction efforts. Many research activities also include active acoustic systems, plankton nets, and other oceanographic equipment that provide important data on the status and trends of marine ecosystems important for various fisheries and natural resource management processes.

    NMFS has prepared the DPEA under NEPA to evaluate several alternatives for conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research activities as the primary Federal action. Additionally in the DPEA, NMFS evaluates a secondary Federal action—also called a “connected action” under 40 CFR 1508.25 of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)—which is the proposed promulgation of regulations and authorization of the take of marine mammals incidental to the fisheries research under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Additionally, because the proposed research activities occur in areas inhabited by species of marine mammals, birds, sea turtles, and fish listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered, this DPEA evaluates activities that could result in unintentional takes of ESA-listed marine species.

    The following four alternatives are evaluated in the DPEA:

    1. No-Action/Status Quo Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research with Scope and Protocols Similar to Past Effort;

    2. Preferred Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Mitigation for MMPA and ESA Compliance;

    3. Modified Research Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Additional Mitigation; and

    4. No Research Alternative—No Fieldwork for Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted or Funded by NWFSC.

    The first three alternatives include a program of fisheries and ecosystem research projects conducted or funded by the NWFSC as the primary Federal action. Because this primary action is connected to a secondary Federal action to consider authorizing incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA, NMFS must identify as part of this evaluation “(t)he means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat.” (Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA [16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.]). NMFS must therefore identify and evaluate a reasonable range of mitigation measures to minimize impacts to marine mammals that occur in NWFSC research areas. These mitigation measures are considered as part of the identified alternatives in order to evaluate their effectiveness to minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The three action alternatives also include mitigation measures intended to minimize potentially adverse interactions with other protected species that occur within the action area. Protected species include all marine mammals, which are covered under the MMPA, all species listed under the ESA, and bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

    NMFS is also evaluating a second type of no-action alternative that considers no federal funding for fieldwork on fisheries and ecosystem research activities. This is called the No Research Alternative to distinguish it from the No-Action/Status Quo Alternative. The No-Action/Status Quo Alternative will be used as the baseline to compare all of the other alternatives.

    Potential direct and indirect effects on the environment are evaluated under each alternative in the DPEA. The environmental effects on the following resources are considered: physical environment, special resource areas, fish, marine mammals, birds, sea turtles, invertebrates, and the social and economic environment. Cumulative effects of external actions and the contribution of fisheries research activities to the overall cumulative impact on the aforementioned resources is also evaluated in the DPEA for the geographic regions in which NWFSC surveys are conducted.

    Information Solicited

    NMFS requests comments on the DPEA for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Please include, with your comments, any supporting data or literature citations that may be informative in substantiating your comment.

    Dated: August 19, 2015. Mark Strom, Deputy Director, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21356 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE134 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Protected Resources Committee; Dolphin Wahoo Committee; Personnel Committee (Closed Session); Advisory Panel Selection Committee (Closed Session); Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee (partially Closed Session); King and Spanish Mackerel Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Data Collection Committee; Law Enforcement Committee; Executive Finance Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council. The Council will also hold a Council Member Visioning Workshop for the Snapper Grouper Fishery. The Council will take action as necessary. The Council will also hold a formal public comment session.

    DATES:

    The Council meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. on Monday, September 14, 2015 until 12 noon on Friday, September 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at The Beach House Hilton Head Island, 1 South Forest Beach Drive, Hilton Head Island, SC 29928; phone: (800) 315-2621 or (843) 785-5126; fax (843) 785-7753.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

    Council Member Visioning Workshop, Monday, September 14, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 12 Noon

    1. Council members will receive a recap of the June 2015 Visioning Workshop, review public input on the draft Vision Blueprint, discuss planning for the October Council Visioning Workshop, and provide guidance to staff.

    Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, Monday, September 14, 2015, 1:30 p.m. Until 2:30 p.m.

    1. The committee will review the status of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan II development and receive updates on Ecosystem modelling, and Essential Fish Habitat.

    2. The committee will discuss the gear stowage language in Coral Amendment 8 and the rulemaking to implement the amendment. The committee will provide recommendations for Council consideration.

    Protected Resources Committee, Monday, September 14, 2015, 2:30 p.m. Until 3:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive updates on protected resource-related issues, receive an overview of the Biological Opinion for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic fishery, and updates on the status of the Endangered Species Act/Magnuson-Stevens Act Integration Agreement and issues from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Dolphin Wahoo Committee, Monday, September 14, 2015, 3:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m.

    1. The committee will receive an update on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus annual catch limits (ACLs), a presentation on recent landings and quota monitoring issues in 2014 and 2015, and an overview of commercial catches and past consideration of trip limits.

    2. The committee will discuss issues and provide guidance to staff.

    Personnel Committee, Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 8 a.m. Until 9 a.m. (Closed Session)

    1. The committee will review the staff retirement health insurance proposal and receive an update on the search for a new Executive Director.

    Advisory Panel Selection Committee, Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 9 a.m. Until 10 a.m. (Closed Session)

    1. The committee will review applications for open advisory panel seats and develop recommendations for Council consideration.

    SEDAR Committee, Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 10 a.m. Until 11 a.m. (Partially Closed Session)

    1. The committee will appoint goliath grouper reviewers for the SEDAR 47 Review Workshop (Closed Session)

    2. The committee will review and approve the Terms of References for the golden tilefish stock assessment update and goliath grouper workshop, review and approve the Council's Research Plan, receive an update on the Headboat Data Evaluation from NOAA Fisheries, and develop 2017-19 assessment priorities.

    3. The committee will provide recommendations for Council consideration.

    King and Spanish Mackerel Committee, Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 11 a.m. Until 12 Noon

    1. The committee will receive an update on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs and an update on the status of amendments under Formal Review.

    2. The committee will receive a report on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council actions relative to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP.

    3. The committee will review Coastal Migratory Pelagics Amendment 26 addressing king mackerel ACLs, allocations, stock boundary options, and sales provisions, modify the amendment as necessary and select preferred alternatives.

    Snapper Grouper Committee, Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 1:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, September 16, 2015, From 8:30 a.m. Until 5 p.m.

    1. The committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on the status of catches versus annual catch limits and the status of amendments currently under formal Secretarial review.

    2. The committee will receive a report from the Scientific and Statistical Committee, discuss measures for blueline tilefish including the development of a regulatory amendment to modify the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL). The committee will modify the draft document, select preferred management alternatives and approve for public hearings. The committee will also review the Options Paper for Amendment 38 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for blueline tilefish and provide guidance to staff.

    3. The committee will review public hearing comments for Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 16 (black sea bass pot closure), develop recommendations for modifying the document, select preferred management alternatives, and approve actions in the amendment.

    4. The committee will receive an update of the Southeast Reef Fish Survey, discuss and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    5. The committee will review public scoping comments on Amendment 37 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing measures for hogfish, discuss and provide direction to staff.

    6. The committee will receive an overview of Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 23 addressing management measures for golden tilefish, black sea bass and the Jacks Complex, review public scoping comments, discuss and provide direction to staff.

    7. The committee will also review draft Amendment 41 to the FMP addressing measures for mutton snapper and provide direction to staff.

    8. The committee will review the second round of public hearing comments for Snapper Grouper Amendment 36 (Spawning Special Management Zones), modify the document as appropriate and provide recommendations relative to actions in the amendment to the Council.

    9. The committee will receive an overview of the Joint South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico South Florida Amendment, develop recommendations for modifying the document as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.

    10. The committee will receive an overview of a possible approach for a Red Snapper Amendment for the 2016 red snapper season, provide recommendations on approving the amendment for public scoping, and provide guidance to staff.

    11. The committee will review recommendations from the Oculina Evaluation Team Report and provide guidance to staff. The committee will also receive an update on approaches to monitor recreational harvest of deepwater species, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.

    Formal Public Comment, Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 5:30 p.m.—Public comment will be accepted on any items on the Council agenda. The Chairman, based on the number of individuals wishing to comment, will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter.

    Data Collection Committee, Thursday, September 17, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 11 a.m. (Partially Close Session)

    1. The committee will make appointments for the Council's Citizen Science Workshop (Closed Session).

    2. The committee will receive an update on the status of bycatch work from NOAA Fisheries, a presentation on the National Observer Program and an overview of the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment addressing bycatch. The Committee will discuss the amendment and provide guidance to staff.

    3. The committee will receive an overview of the Implementation Plan for Commercial Logbook Reporting and take action as appropriate. The committee will also receive an update on NOAA Fisheries' Commercial Logbook Pilot Study.

    4. The committee will receive an overview of the joint Gulf of Mexico Council and South Atlantic Council Generic Charterboat Reporting Amendment, review the document, select preferred alternatives, and approve the amendment for public hearings.

    Law Enforcement Committee, Thursday, September 17, 2015, 11 a.m. Until 12 Noon

    1. The committee will receive a presentation on the use of Operator Permits in the Southeast as it relates to enforcement operations, discuss and provide guidance to staff.

    Executive Finance Committee, Thursday, September 17, 2015, 1:30 p.m. Until 3 p.m.

    1. The committee will receive an update on the status of Calendar-Year 2015 budget expenditures.

    2. Address the Council Follow-up and priorities.

    3. Discuss the webinar format used in recent public input sessions, provide direction to staff, and address other issues as appropriate.

    Council Session: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m. and Friday, September 18, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 12 Noon Thursday, September 17, 2015, 3:30 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m. 3:30-4 p.m.: Call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, approve the June 2015 meeting minutes, elect Chair and Vice-Chair and present the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award. 4-4:30 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee, and approve/disapprove Snapper Grouper Blueline Tilefish Framework Action for public hearings; approve/disapprove all actions in Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 16; approve/disapprove all actions in Snapper Grouper Amendment 36; and approve/disapprove Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 and the Red Snapper Amendment for public scoping. 4:30-4:45 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Mackerel Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. 4:45-5 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee, consider recommendations, and appoint/reappoint advisory panel members as necessary. 5-5:15 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Council Member Visioning Workshop, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. 5:15-5:30 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, consider committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate. Friday, September 18, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Until 12 Noon 8:30-8:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Protected Resources Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate. 8:45-9 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, appoint goliath grouper reviewers and an SSC panellist for the SEDAR 41 Assessment Workshop. The Council will approve the Terms of References for the golden tilefish stock assessment update and goliath grouper workshop, consider other committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. 9-9:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, approve the Council Follow-Up and Priorities, consider other committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. 9:15-9:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Dolphin Wahoo Committee, consider committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. 9:30-9:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Data Collection Committee, approve/disapprove the Joint Gulf and South Atlantic Generic Charterboat Reporting Amendment for public hearings, appoint Citizen Science Workshop participants, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate. 9:45 a.m.-10 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Committee, consider committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. 10-10:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Personnel Committee, approve/disapprove the staff retirement health insurance plan, consider other committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. 10:15-12 noon: The Council will receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The Council will review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary; receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.

    Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES).

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21349 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE147 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Crab Plan Team (CPT) will meet September 14 through September 17, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, September 14 through Thursday, September 17, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center Traynor Room, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115. Webex information will be posted on the agenda at http://www.npfmc.org/

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Monday, September 14, 2015 Through Thursday, September 17, 2015

    The agenda includes final overfishing limits and acceptable biological catch limits for snow crab, Tanner crab, Bristol Bay red king crab, Saint Matthew blue king crab, Pribilof Island blue king crab, Pribilof Island red king crab; model recommendations for Norton Sound red king crab, Aleutian Islands golden king crab; discussion of a generalized model application to Bristol Bay red king crab; review of an Exempted Fishing Permit for a closure in Bristol Bay; Essential Fish Halibut five year review; and final Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for Bearing Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21352 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE137 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, September 14, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789; fax: (617) 561-0798.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Advisory Panel (AP) plans to review the Draft 2016-18 Atlantic Herring Fishery Specifications Package and develop AP recommendations regarding the selection of final 2016-2018 Atlantic herring fishery specifications; the 2016-18 specifications will address overfishing levels and acceptable biological catch, management uncertainty, optimum yield and a stock-wide annual catch limit (ACL) for Atlantic herring, Domestic Annual Harvest, Domestic Annual Processing, U.S. At-Sea Processing, Border Transfer, sub-ACLs (quotas) for each of the four Atlantic herring management areas, seasonal (monthly) sub-ACL allocations, research set-asides, set-asides for fixed gear fisheries, and annual gear/area-specific catch caps for river herring/shad (RH/S). They also plan to review/discuss the Draft Environmental Assessment for the NMFS-led omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) Amendment; review options under consideration to establish IFM in the Atlantic herring fishery and develop recommendations regarding the selection of a preferred alternative. They will also discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21350 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE138 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789; fax: (617) 561-0798.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The committee will receive a report from the September 14, 2015 Herring Advisory Panel (AP) meeting and consider the Herring AP recommendations. They also plan to review the Draft 2016-18 Atlantic Herring Fishery Specifications Package and develop committee recommendations regarding the selection of final 2016-18 Atlantic herring fishery specifications (anticipated at the September 2015 Council meeting). The committee will also review/discuss the Draft Environmental Assessment for the NMFS-led omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) Amendment and develop recommendations regarding the selection of a Preferred Alternative for the options to establish IFM in the Atlantic herring fishery. Additionally, the committee will provide an opportunity for the public to submit scoping comments on Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. They will also discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21351 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE129 Marine Mammals; File No. 19439 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Daniel P. Costa, Ph.D., University of California at Santa Cruz, Long Marine Laboratory, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on pinnipeds in Antarctica.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 19439 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include File No. 19439 in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Sloan or Brendan Hurley, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The purpose of this research is to understand the foraging ecology, physiology, habitat use, and diving behavior of Southern Ocean pinnipeds and the factors that affect and constrain their foraging and at-sea behaviors and how these ecological and physiological factors (1) vary in space and time, (2) influence and constrain the behavior of these species, (3) are impacted by environmental change, and (4) compare with other marine mammal species. To accomplish these objectives, the applicant proposes to capture and sample leopard (Hydrurga leptonyx), crabeater (Lobodon carcinophaga), southern elephant (Mirounga leonina), Ross (Ommatophoca rossii), Weddell (Leptonychotes weddellii), and Antarctic fur (Arctocephalus gazella) seals throughout their range for five years. Researchers may capture up to 40 animals per species per year at sites throughout their range to collect tissue samples, morphometrics, and metabolic and physiological measurements, apply identifying marks, and attach instruments; as well as an additional 50 pups of each species for marking, morphometrics, and minimal sample collection. An additional 100 each of crabeater seals, leopard seals, and Ross seals, 500 southern elephant seals, and 1000 each of Weddell seals and Antarctic fur seals may be taken annually via Level B harassment by incidental disturbance during captures, opportunistic sample collection, and resights. Unintentional mortality or serious injury of up to four animals per species annually not to exceed ten animals per species over five years is requested. Blood and tissue samples would be imported from the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to the United States and exported world-wide for analyses.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21393 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE103 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Fisheries Research AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has received a request from the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting fisheries research, over the course of five years from the date of issuance. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of the NWFSC's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals. NMFS invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on the NWFSC's application and request.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the applications should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to [email protected]

    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability

    An electronic copy of the NWFSC's application may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. The NWFSC is concurrently releasing a draft Environmental Assessment, prepared pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, for the conduct of their fisheries research. A copy of the draft EA, which would also support our proposed rulemaking under the MMPA, is available at the same Web site.

    Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued.

    Incidental taking shall be allowed if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) affected and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

    Summary of Request

    On August 10, 2015, NMFS received an application from the NWFSC requesting authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted by the NWFSC. The requested regulations would be valid for five years from the date of issuance. The NWFSC plans to conduct fisheries research surveys in the Pacific Ocean, within the California Current, Puget Sound, and the Columbia River. It is possible that marine mammals may interact with fishing gear (e.g., trawls nets, longlines) used in NWFSC's fisheries research projects, resulting in injury, serious injury, or mortality. In addition, the NWFSC operates active acoustic devices that have the potential to disturb marine mammals. Because the specified activities have the potential to take marine mammals present within these action areas, the NWFSC requests authorization to take multiple species of marine mammal that may occur in these areas.

    Specified Activities

    The Federal Government has a responsibility to conserve and protect living marine resources in U.S. federal waters and has also entered into a number of international agreements and treaties related to the management of living marine resources in international waters outside the United States. NOAA has the primary responsibility for managing marine fin and shellfish species and their habitats, with that responsibility delegated within NOAA to NMFS.

    In order to direct and coordinate the collection of scientific information needed to make informed management decisions, Congress created six Regional Fisheries Science Centers, each a distinct organizational entity and the scientific focal point within NMFS for region-based federal fisheries-related research. This research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, abundance, survival and biological rates, geographic distribution of species and stocks, ecosystem process changes, and marine ecological research. The NWFSC is the research arm of NMFS in the Pacific Northwest.

    Research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, survival and biological rates, abundance and geographic distribution of species and stocks, and providing other scientific information needed to improve our understanding of complex marine ecological processes. The NWFSC proposes to administer and conduct these survey programs over the five-year period. Several of these surveys also use active acoustic devices.

    Information Solicited

    Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the NWFSC's request (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will consider all information, suggestions, and comments related to the request during the development of proposed regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the NWFSC, if appropriate.

    Dated: August 21, 2015. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21298 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 9/28/2015.

    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 6/19/2015 (80 FR 35320-35321), 6/26/2015 (80 FR 36772) and (80 FR 36773-36774) and 7/2/2015 (80 FR 38179), 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 service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service 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 service to the Government.

    2. The action will 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 proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8465-00-NIB-0160—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, Blue, Large 8465-00-NIB-0161—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, Blue, XLarge 8465-00-NIB-0226—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, 3” White Reflective Vinyl Numbers, Blue, Large 8465-00-NIB-0227—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, 3” White Reflective Vinyl Numbers, Blue, XLarge 8465-00-NIB-0180—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, Yellow, Large 8465-00-NIB-0181—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, Yellow, XLarge 8465-00-NIB-0228—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, 3” White Reflective Vinyl Numbers, Yellow, Large 8465-00-NIB-0229—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, 3” White Reflective Vinyl Numbers, Yellow, XLarge 8465-00-NIB-0182—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, Orange, Large 8465-00-NIB-0183—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, Orange, XLarge 8465-00-NIB-0230—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, 3” White Reflective Vinyl Numbers, Orange, Large 8465-00-NIB-0231—Vest, Physical Training, Name Tag Velcro, 3” White Reflective Vinyl Numbers, Orange, XLarge Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8105-00-NIB-1412—Aquapad Sand-less Sandbag Mandatory Source of Supply: Envision Industries, Inc., Wichita, KS Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Construction & Equipment Distribution: B-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8540-00-262-7178—Towel, Paper, Single-Fold, Natural, 9-1/4” W Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List Service: Service Type: Laundry and Linen Service Service Mandatory For: US Air Force, 2610 Pink Flamingo Avenue, MacDill AFB, FL Mandatory Source of Supply: Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, FL Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4814 6 CONS LGCP, Tampa, FL Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21363 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Guidelines for Carrying Out Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as Amended AGENCY:

    United States Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has updated the existing guidance for providing in-kind credit under Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as further amended by Section 1018 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2015-0013 by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number, COE-2015-0013, in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CE, Janice E. Rasgus, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number COE-2015-0013. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line athttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that 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 regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly to the Corps without going through 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, we recommend 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 we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janice E. Rasgus, Planning and Policy Division, Washington, DC at 202-761-7674.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 1018(d) of WRRDA 2014 requires the Corps to update and publish this draft of ER 1165-2-208 in the Federal Register and offer the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed guidelines. The Corps will review all comments received by the deadline and will make its response to those comments available when then ER is finalized and published on the Corps Web site.

    Authority: We are proposing to issue this Engineering Regulation under the authority of Section 221 (a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Theodore A. Brown, Chief, Planning and Policy Division, Directorate of Civil Works. Engineering Regulation, ER 1165-2-208, In-Kind Contribution Credit Provisions of Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended.

    1. Purpose. This regulation provides guidance on the implementation of the in-kind contribution credit provisions of Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as further amended by Section 1018 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)) (hereinafter referred to as “Section 221”). Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 1018 of WRRDA 2014 are provided in Appendix A. This regulation supersedes ER 1165-2-208 dated 17 February 2012.

    2. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

    3. Applicability. This regulation applies to all HQUSACE elements, Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs), and district commands having Civil Works responsibility and is effective immediately.

    a. The Section 221 crediting provisions apply to the study, design, and construction of water resources development projects authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 or later laws, including projects initiated after November 16, 1986 without specific authorization in law. In addition, the crediting provisions apply to the correction of design deficiencies for projects authorized prior to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Finally, these provisions are also applicable to a project under the an environmental infrastructure assistance program.

    (1) For a project with a project partnership agreement (PPA) that was executed on or after November 8, 2007, such PPA may be amended to include work by the non-Federal sponsor that has not yet been initiated for credit toward any remaining non-Federal cost share under that agreement.

    (2) Furthermore, in general, the crediting provisions of Section 221 will be used in lieu of Section 104 of WRDA 1986 and Section 215 of the Flood Control Act of 1968. However, any eligibility for credit under Section 104 of WRDA 1986 that was approved previously by the Secretary will be honored.

    b. The authority for credit under Section 221 credit is in addition to any other authority to provide credit for in-kind contributions. Section 221 credit may be applied in lieu of other crediting provisions if requested by the non-federal sponsor.

    4. Key Principles.

    a. In General. Section 221 is a comprehensive authority that addresses the affording of credit for the value of in-kind contributions provided by a non-Federal sponsor toward its required cost share (excluding the required 5 percent cash for structural flood damage reduction projects and the additional 10 percent cash payment over 30 years for navigation projects) if those in-kind contributions are determined to be integral to a study or project.

    b. Types of In-Kind Contributions. The types of in-kind contributions eligible for credit include planning activities (including data collection and other services needed for a feasibility study); design related to construction; and construction (including management; mitigation; and construction materials and services).

    c. Compliance with Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies. Eligibility for credit is subject to the non-Federal sponsor complying with all applicable Federal laws and implementing regulations, including, but not limited to Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d), and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6102); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and Army Regulation 600-7 issued pursuant thereto; and 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 (labor standards originally enacted as the Davis-Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act); and the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws and regulations.

    d. In-Kind Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

    (1) Construction. Section 221 provides that any construction work that has not been carried out as of November 8, 2007 is eligible for credit only if the non-Federal sponsor executes an agreement with the Secretary prior to carrying out such work. For purposes of section 221 crediting only, “carrying out” construction work means initiation of construction using the non-Federal sponsor's labor force or issuance of the notice to proceed for such construction if undertaken by contract. Therefore, in those cases where there is not yet an executed PPA, the non-Federal sponsor must execute an in-kind MOU with the Corps of Engineers prior to initiating construction or issuing the notice to proceed. Design work associated with that construction is eligible for credit as long as an in-kind MOU or PPA is executed prior to the construction being carried out. In addition, the construction carried out by the non-Federal sponsor is not considered as part of the future without project condition.

    (a) Projects Specifically Authorized. For projects that are or will be specifically authorized for construction, an In-Kind MOU for construction may be executed once there is vertical team concurrence with the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP Milestone). The TSP milestone is the point at which there is vertical team concurrence on the plan that will be released in the draft study report for public and agency review. Given the new SMART Planning Process, the TSP Milestone should occur much earlier in the planning process than what was previously achieved. Requests from non-Federal sponsors to execute an in-kind MOU for construction prior to the TSP Milestone will be considered on a case-by- case basis and must be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Since each project presents its own unique combination of circumstances, each request will require an individual evaluation that will include consideration of, but not limited to, the following criteria:

    (i) Whether the proposed work is a modification of an existing Federal project;

    (ii) Whether the proposed work will follow an existing levee alignment in the case of a flood risk management project;

    (iii) Whether the proposed work balances and integrates the wise use of flood plains to ensure public safety;

    (iv) Whether the proposed work significantly reduces flood damage risk to human life, property or critical infrastructure; and

    (iv) Whether the proposed work will likely be included in the final project recommendation.

    (b) Continuing Authority Program. For projects implemented under the Continuing Authority Program or a regional authority that does not require additional authorization to implement the project, an In-Kind MOU for design and implementation may be executed after the MSC Commander approves the decision document for the project.

    (2) Design. For projects that are or will be specifically authorized for construction, an In-Kind MOU for design may be executed after the TSP milestone, i.e., the point at which there is vertical team concurrence on the tentatively selected plan that will be released in the draft study report for public and agency review.

    (3) Planning.

    (a) Projects Specifically Authorized. For projects that are or will be specifically authorized for construction, Section 1002 of WRRDA 2014 eliminated the full Federal reconnaissance phase that used to be undertaken prior to execution of a feasibility cost sharing agreement. In the past, a project management plan, which established the scope of the planning, including activities needed to carry out the study, was developed during this reconnaissance phase. Under the new single phase study process mandated by WRRDA 2014, the project management plan will not be developed until after execution of feasibility cost sharing agreement. Therefore, an In-Kind MOU for planning is not permitted as the project management plan, including a determination of the scope of the study, will not be developed until after execution of a feasibility cost sharing agreement.

    (b) Continuing Authority Program. For projects implemented under the Continuing Authority Program or a regional authority that does not require additional authorization to implement the project, sections 905(c) and 105(a)(3) of WRDA 1986, as amended, provide that the first $100,000 of these studies is a Federal expense. Therefore, once a PMP has been developed and the MSC Commander has approved initiation of the feasibility study, an In-Kind MOU for planning may be executed.

    (4) Any work undertaken by a non-Federal sponsor pursuant to an In-Kind MOU is at its own risk and responsibility. An In-Kind MOU provides no assurance that the non-Federal sponsor's work will be determined to be integral to the Federal project or that any construction undertaken by the non-Federal sponsor will be included as part of any ultimately recommended Federal project. Execution of an In-Kind MOU in no way obligates the Corps to enter into any future agreement for the project.

    (5) MSC Commanders may approve a District Engineer's execution of Model In-Kind MOUs for Construction or for Design, provided that the MOUs do not include any deviations. Any proposed deviations must be submitted to HQUSACE for approval prior to execution. Models for the In-kind MOU for construction, including design work, and for design work only are available at www.Corpsplanning.us.

    e. Integral Determinations.

    (1) Section 221 provides that credit may be afforded only if the Secretary determines that the material or service provided as an in-kind contribution by a non-Federal sponsor is integral to the study or project.1 To be integral to the study or project, the material or service must be part of the work that the Federal Government would otherwise have undertaken for the study or for construction of what is ultimately determined to be the Federal project. See Appendix B for additional guidance on criteria and procedures for processing integral determinations.

    1 The costs of Coordination Team participation and audits are not in-kind contributions and are not included in “shared costs” for cost sharing purposes. The costs of the non-Federal Sponsor's performance of investigations for hazardous substances are eligible for inclusion as a shared costs and for credit as an in-kind contribution and do not require a separate integral determination.

    (2) The approval of integral determinations is delegated to the MSC Commander. The approval authority delegated to the MSC Commander is subject to the full compliance of each integral determination to law and policy and may not be further delegated within the MSC or to the District Commander. A separate integral determination is not required for planning activities included in the project management plan, approved by the MSC Commander, as required for the study effort.

    f. Determining the Amount of Credit.

    (1) The amount of in-kind contributions that may be eligible for inclusion in shared costs for cost sharing purposes under the applicable cost sharing agreement will be subject to an audit by the Government to determine the reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of such amount.

    (2) The creditable amount is the lesser of the costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor to obtain such materials or services; the market value of such materials or services as of the date that the non-Federal sponsor provides such materials or services for use in the study or project; or the Government's estimate of the cost for such work if it had been accomplished by the Government. This amount is not subject to interest charges or to adjustment to reflect changes in price levels between the time the in-kind contributions were completed and the time the amount is credited.

    (3) Any in-kind contributions performed or paid for by the non-Federal sponsor using funds provided by another Federal agency (as well as any non-Federal matching share or contribution that was required by such Federal agency for such program or grant) are not eligible for credit unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the study or project.

    (4) After execution of the applicable FCSA, DA, or PPA, the non-Federal sponsor will submit to the Government (not less frequently than every 6 months) credit request(s) for eligible in-kind contributions under that agreement. The credit requests will contain the following: (a) Written certification by the non-Federal sponsor of the payments made to contractors, suppliers, or employees for in-kind contributions; (b) copies of all relevant invoices and evidence of such payments; (c) written identification of costs that have been paid with funds or grants provided by a Federal agency as well as any non-Federal matching share or contribution that was required by such Federal agency for such program or grant; and (d) a written request for credit of a specific amount not in excess of such specified payments. Failure to provide sufficient documentation supporting the credit request will result in a denial of credit in accordance with the terms of the applicable cost sharing agreement.

    (5) In-kind contributions are subject to a review (for feasibility level and design activities) or on-site inspection (construction), as applicable, and certification by the Government that the work was accomplished in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies. The Government will not include in the costs to be shared under the applicable cost sharing agreement or afford credit for any work the Government determines was not accomplished in a satisfactory manner or in accordance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

    (6) In general, the amount of credit for in-kind contributions that can be afforded under a FCSA or a PPA is limited to the amount of the non-Federal sponsor's cost share under that agreement. As the costs of design under a Design Agreement (DA) are included in total project costs under a PPA, credit for in-kind contributions under a DA is carried over to the PPA, and the maximum of amount of credit for in-kind contributions under a PPA is limited to the non-Federal sponsor's required cost share under the PPA. Credit for in-kind contributions may not be afforded toward the required 5 percent cash payment for structural flood damage reduction projects or the additional 10 percent cash payment for navigation projects.

    (7) Credit for in-kind contributions for planning is limited to credit that can be afforded under a specific FCSA. In other words, excess credit may not be carried over to design or construction of the project. Credit for planning work by the non-Federal sponsor is limited to its 50 percent of planning costs and will be done in accordance with the PMP, under the terms and conditions in the FCSA.

    (8) Credit for in-kind contributions provided by a non-Federal sponsor for the construction of a project, or separable element thereof, that are in excess of the non-Federal cost share for an authorized separable element of a project may be applied toward the non-federal cost share for a different authorized separable element of the same project. Additional Federal appropriations will be required to offset the application of any excess credit to another separable element.

    (9) If the value of eligible in-kind contributions exceeds the amount of credit that can be afforded pursuant to the provisions of a PPA (i.e., exceeds the required non-Federal cost share for all features covered by that PPA), only the amount of credit afforded should be included in total project costs. Recalculation of total project costs will be required to exclude from total project costs the value of in-kind contributions that exceed the amount of credit that can be afforded. In addition, the amount excluded will not be considered part of total costs for the purposes of Section 902 of WRDA 1986 calculations.

    (10) No reimbursements are authorized for in-kind contributions under Section 221 except as provided in paragraph 4 g., below.

    g. Lands, Easements, Relocations, Rights-of-Way, and Areas for Disposal of Dredged Material (LERRDs). Section 221 does not alter any other requirement for the non-Federal sponsor to provide LERRDs for a project. Any LERRDs associated with in-kind contributions determined to be integral to the project will be credited to the project as LERRDs. For a navigation project, LERRs are creditable only toward the requirement for the non-Federal sponsor to pay an additional 10 percent of the cost of the general navigation features.

    (1) Previously, credit for in-kind contributions was afforded only toward the non-Federal sponsor's required cash contribution after consideration of the value of LERRDs provided by the non-Federal sponsor. WRRDA 2014 changes how credit for in-kind contributions is calculated. For projects other than navigation projects, to the extent that credit for LERRDs combined with credit for the value of in-kind contributions exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of a project, WRRDA 2014 provides that the Secretary, subject to the availability of funds, shall enter into a separate reimbursement agreement to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for the difference between creditable LERRDs and in-kind contributions and the non-Federal cost share. Therefore, at the final accounting for the project, to the extent funds for the project remain available, the Secretary shall execute an agreement with the non-Federal sponsor for reimbursement of the difference.

    (2) If funds remaining on a project are insufficient to provide full reimbursement under paragraph f.(1), the non-Federal sponsor may request reimbursement. The Secretary shall prioritize such requests, and enter into reimbursements agreements, in the order the requests were received, as funds become available for reimbursements.

    5. Design. Design by the non-Federal sponsor must be performed in accordance with the requirements in ER 1110-2-1150, reviewed in accordance with ER 1110-1-12, and subject to the applicable peer review guidance. In accordance with section 105(c) of WRDA 1986, the costs of design shall be shared in the same percentages as the purposes of such project.

    a. If the value of eligible in-kind contributions is less than the non-Federal sponsor's share of design costs, the non-Federal sponsor must contribute sufficient funds to equal its share of total design costs.

    b. If the value of eligible in-kind contributions is greater than the non-Federal sponsor's share of total design costs, then no cash payment from the non-Federal sponsor is required. The value of all of the non-Federal sponsor's eligible in-kind contributions (including those in excess of its share of total design costs) will be included in total project costs in the PPA. The maximum amount of credit that may be afforded pursuant to the PPA is limited to the non-Federal sponsor's cost share under that agreement.

    6. Construction.

    a. To be eligible for credit, in-kind contributions prior to execution of the PPA must have been provided or performed after execution of an In-Kind MOU. Credit for in-kind contributions will not be afforded toward the non-Federal sponsor's requirement to provide in cash 5 percent of the costs for structural flood damage reduction projects (either specifically authorized or implemented pursuant to Continuing Authority Program Sections 14, 205, or 208 projects); the non-Federal sponsor's requirement to pay for betterments or any other work performed by the Government on behalf of the non-Federal sponsor; the non-Federal sponsor's requirement to provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or improvements to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material required for the project or separable element of the project; or the non-Federal sponsor's additional payment of 10 percent of the cost of general navigation features for a navigation project.

    b. The non-Federal sponsor may not initiate construction following execution of a PPA until the designs, detailed plans and specifications, and arrangements for the prosecution of such work have been approved by the Government. In addition, any proposed changes to approved designs and plans and specifications must be approved by the Government in advance of such construction. Upon completion of construction, the non-Federal sponsor will furnish to the Government a copy of all final as-built drawings.

    c. For CAP authorities and regional authorities that are implemented with a single agreement covering design and implementation, if a non-Federal sponsor proposes to provide or perform all or a portion of the design for a project as in-kind contributions, a PPA addressing both design and construction is required.

    FOR THE COMMANDER: Colonel, Corps of Engineers Chief of Staff Enclosures: 2 Appendices Appendix A—Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4) Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 1018 of WRRDA 2014 Appendix B—Criteria for In-Kind Contribution Integral Determinations APPENDIX A Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)) SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS. COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.

    (4) Credit for in-kind contributions.

    (A) In general. A partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, including a project implemented without specific authorization in law or a project under an environmental infrastructure assistance program, the value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest, including—

    (i) the costs of planning (including data collection), design, management, mitigation, construction, and construction services that are provided by the non-Federal interest for implementation of the project;

    (ii) the value of materials or services provided before execution of the partnership agreement, including efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the project; and

    (iii) the value of materials and services provided after execution of the partnership agreement.

    (B) Condition. The Secretary may credit an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary determines that the material or service provided as an in-kind contribution is integral to the project.

    (C) Work performed before partnership agreement.

    (i) Construction.

    (I) In general. In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of construction carried out by the non-Federal interest before execution of a partnership agreement and that construction has not been carried out as of November 8, 2007, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work and shall do so prior to the non-Federal interest initiating construction or issuing a written notice to proceed for the construction.

    (II) Eligibility. Construction that is carried out after the execution of an agreement to carry out work described in subclause (I) and any design activities that are required for that construction, even if the design activity is carried out prior to the execution of the agreement to carry out work, shall be eligible for credit.

    (ii) Planning.

    (I) In general. In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of planning carried out by the non-Federal interest before execution of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work and shall do so prior to the non-Federal interest initiating that planning.

    (II) Eligibility. Planning that is carried out by the non-Federal interest after the execution of an agreement to carry out work described in subclause (I) shall be eligible for credit.

    (D) Limitations. Credit authorized under this paragraph for a project—

    (i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project;

    (ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a non-Federal interest provide lands, easements, relocations, rights-of-way, or areas for disposal of dredged material for the project;

    (iii) shall not alter any requirement that a non-Federal interest pay a portion of the costs of construction of the project under sections 101(a)(2) and 103(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(2); 33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(1)(A)) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211; 33 U.S.C. 2213); and

    (iv) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.

    (E) Analysis of costs and benefits. In the evaluation of the costs and benefits of a project, the Secretary shall not consider construction carried out by a non-Federal interest under this subsection as part of the future without project condition.

    (F) Transfer of credit between separable elements of a project. Credit for in-kind contributions provided by a non-Federal interest that are in excess of the non-Federal cost share for an authorized separable element of a project may be applied toward the non-Federal cost share for a different authorized separable element of the same project.

    (G) Application of credit.

    (i) In general. To the extent that credit for in-kind contributions, as limited by subparagraph (D), and credit for required land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project other than a navigation project, the Secretary, subject to the availability of funds, shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the non-Federal interest, which shall be in addition to a partnership agreement under subparagraph (A), to reimburse the difference to the non-Federal interest.

    (ii) Priority. If appropriated funds are insufficient to cover the full cost of all requested reimbursement agreements under clause (i), the Secretary shall enter into reimbursement agreements in the order in which requests for such agreements are received.”; and

    (H) Applicability.

    (i) In general. This paragraph shall apply to water resources projects authorized after November 16, 1986, including projects initiated after November 16, 1986, without specific authorization in law, and to water resources projects authorized prior to the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) [enacted June 10, 2014], if correction of design deficiencies is necessary.

    (ii) Authorization as addition to other authorizations. The authority of the Secretary to provide credit for in-kind contributions pursuant to this paragraph shall be in addition to any other authorization to provide credit for in-kind contributions and shall not be construed as a limitation on such other authorization. The Secretary shall apply the provisions of this paragraph, in lieu of provisions under other crediting authority, only if so requested by the non-Federal interest.

    Section 1018 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 Sec. 1018. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) In General.—Section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)) is amended—

    (1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting “or a project under an environmental infrastructure assistance program” after “law”;

    (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking “In any case” and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following:

    “(i) CONSTRUCTION.—

    “(I) In General.—In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of construction carried out by the non-Federal interest before execution of a partnership agreement and that construction has not been carried out as of November 8, 2007, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work and shall do so prior to the non-Federal interest initiating construction or issuing a written notice to proceed for the construction.

    “(II) Eligibility.—Construction that is carried out after the execution of an agreement to carry out work described in subclause (I) and any design activities that are required for that construction, even if the design activity is carried out prior to the execution of the agreement to carry out work, shall be eligible for credit.

    “(ii) PLANNING.—

    “(I) In General.—In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of planning carried out by the non-Federal interest before execution of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work and shall do so prior to the non-Federal interest initiating that planning.

    “(II) Eligibility.—Planning that is carried out by the non-Federal interest after the execution of an agreement to carry out work described in subclause (I) shall be eligible for credit.”;

    (3) in subparagraph (D)(iii) by striking “sections 101 and 103” and inserting “sections 101(a)(2) and 103(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(2); 33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(1)(A))”;

    (4) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (H);

    (5) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:

    “(E) Analysis of Costs and Benefits.—In the evaluation of the costs and benefits of a project, the Secretary shall not consider construction carried out by a non-Federal interest under this subsection as part of the future without project condition.

    “(F) Transfer of Credit Between Separable Elements of a Project.—Credit for in-kind contributions provided by a non-Federal interest that are in excess of the non-Federal cost share for an authorized separable element of a project may be applied toward the non-Federal cost share for a different authorized separable element of the same project.

    “(G) APPLICATION OF CREDIT.—

    “(i) In General.—To the extent that credit for in-kind contributions, as limited by subparagraph (D), and credit for required land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project other than a navigation project, the Secretary, subject to the availability of funds, shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the non-Federal interest, which shall be in addition to a partnership agreement under subparagraph (A), to reimburse the difference to the non-Federal interest.

    “(ii) Priority.—If appropriated funds are insufficient to cover the full cost of all requested reimbursement agreements under clause (i), the Secretary shall enter into reimbursement agreements in the order in which requests for such agreements are received.”; and

    (6) in subparagraph (H) (as redesignated by paragraph (4))—

    (A) in clause (i) by inserting “, and to water resources projects authorized prior to the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662), if correction of design deficiencies is necessary” before the period at the end; and

    (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:

    “(ii) Authorization As Addition to Other Authorizations.—The authority of the Secretary to provide credit for in-kind contributions pursuant to this paragraph shall be in addition to any other authorization to provide credit for in-kind contributions and shall not be construed as a limitation on such other authorization. The Secretary shall apply the provisions of this paragraph, in lieu of provisions under other crediting authority, only if so requested by the non-Federal interest.”.

    (b) Applicability.—Section 2003(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b note) is amended—

    (1) by inserting “, or construction of design deficiency corrections on the project,” after “construction on the project”; and

    (2) by inserting “, or under which construction of the project has not been completed and the work to be performed by the non-Federal interests has not been carried out and is creditable only toward any remaining non-Federal cost share,” after “has not been initiated”.

    (c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) take effect on November 8, 2007.

    (d) Guidelines.—

    (1) In General.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any guidance or regulations for carrying out section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)) (as amended by subsection (a)) that are in existence on the date of enactment of this Act or issue new guidelines, as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.

    (2) Inclusions.— Any guidance, regulations, or guidelines updated or issued under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum—

    (A) the milestone for executing an in-kind memorandum of understanding for construction by a non-Federal interest;

    (B) criteria and procedures for evaluating a request to execute an in-kind memorandum of understanding for construction by a non-Federal interest that is earlier than the milestone under subparagraph (A) for that execution; and

    (C) criteria and procedures for determining whether work carried out by a non-Federal interest is integral to a project.

    (3) Public and Stakeholder Participation.— Before issuing any new or revised guidance, regulations, or guidelines or any subsequent updates to those documents, the Secretary shall—

    (A) consult with affected non-Federal interests;

    (B) publish the proposed guidelines developed under this subsection in the Federal Register; and

    (C) provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed guidelines.

    (e) Other Credit.—Nothing in section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)) (as amended by subsection (a)) affects any eligibility for credit under section 104 of the Water Resources Development of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2214) that was approved by the Secretary prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

    APPENDIX B Criteria and Procedures for In-Kind Contribution Integral Determinations

    C-1. Determining if In-Kind Contributions Are Integral to the Study/Project. Establishing and allowing credit is a two step process whereby: 1) eligibility is determined by performing the integral determination, and 2) actual affording of credit is accomplished by audit of the non-Federal work by the District Engineer under the terms of the FCSA, DA, or PPA, as appropriate. The Government must determine that the in-kind contributions are integral to the study or project for those contributions to be considered eligible for credit.

    a. Approval Level of Integral Determinations. Under the terms of Paragraph 4.e.. of this regulation, approval of integral determinations is delegated to the MSC Commander. This authority may not be further delegated.

    b. Timing of Integral Determinations.

    (1) The integral determination must be completed immediately prior to review and approval of a DA or PPA, or amendment as applicable, that provides for the affording of credit. The integral determination for planning efforts is accomplished as part of the development of the PMP. An integral determination is not required prior to execution of an In-Kind MOU for design or construction.

    (2) Include at least 30 days in the project schedule for processing at the MSC of the Integral Determinations by the MSC Commander. These times are recommended for scheduling purposes and should be extended if processing identifies significant issues requiring resolution.

    c. Procedures for Processing.

    (1) For a feasibility study, planning activities, including data collection, must be included in the approved Project Management Plan in order for those contributions to be eligible for credit.

    (2) The District will prepare an Integral Determination Report (IDR) for design and construction work that includes at a minimum the information contained in the following paragraphs. A suggested format for an IDR can be found at www.Corpsplanning.us. The IDR shall contain a description of the activities required to perform the design or construction, as applicable, of the Federal project or separable element in sufficient detail to allow a comparison with the description of the proposed in-kind contributions; a detailed description of the work items proposed to be provided or performed as in-kind contributions; a discussion of how each work item proposed to be provided or performed as an in-kind contribution is integral to the project; an estimate of the costs of each work item proposed to be provided or performed as an in-kind contribution; the estimated amount of credit to be afforded for each work item proposed to be provided or performed as an in-kind contribution; and a District Commander recommendation identifying which of the proposed in-kind contributions should be considered integral to the project. If the in-kind contributions were provided or performed prior to execution of the applicable cost sharing agreement, then also include in the IDR the results of the review or inspection, as applicable, and certification by the District Commander on whether the work was accomplished in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies; and documentation of satisfactory environmental compliance for the construction portion of the in-kind contributions.

    (3) The district will submit the IDR to the MSC District Support Team for action. The MSC District Support Team will perform the MSC review of the IDR. The MSC review team also will include members from the MSC Office of Counsel and from the MSC Planning Community of Practice (CoP), MSC Engineering and Construction CoP, MSC Real Estate CoP, and other CoPs, as needed. In addition, if the proposed in-kind contributions consist of design or construction of dams, levees, or bridges, the MSC review team must include the MSC Dam, Levee, or Bridge Safety Officer. After satisfactory resolution of all comments on the IDR and a determination that the IDR complies with all applicable law and policy, the MSC District Support Team shall prepare an Integral Determination memo for approval and signature by the MSC Commander. If the IDR does not or cannot be modified to comply with law and policy, then the MSC should contact the HQUSACE RIT to facilitate the resolution of the concerns.

    (4) The Integral Determination approval memo will state whether the work identified in the IDR, or a portion thereof, has been determined to be integral to the project. In addition, the memo should state that determination of the actual value of the in-kind contributions and affording credit for such amount will be accomplished by the Government in accordance with the limitations, conditions, and terms of the applicable cost sharing agreement.

    C-2. The following may be accepted as integral:

    The proposed in-kind contributions are a part of the Federal project.

    b. The proposed in-kind contributions consist of work that the Government would have otherwise provided or performed for the project, except for performance of activities that are inherently Governmental responsibilities (see paragraph C-3 below). Examples of activities that are acceptable in-kind contributions: performance of design of all or a portion of the Federal project, including data collection related to design work; demolition of buildings on lands required for the project; performance of design or construction related studies for historic preservation activities; performance of cost shared monitoring and adaptive management; and construction of a portion of the project.

    c. For proposed in-kind contributions performed prior to execution of the applicable cost sharing agreement, the in-kind contributions have been reviewed or inspected, as applicable, and certified by the Government that the work was accomplished in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

    d. For any proposed in-kind contributions proposed to be performed after execution of the PPA, the plans and specifications will be approved by the District Commander prior to initiation of the construction work.

    e. For materials provided for use in construction work managed by the Government, the materials meet the minimum Government requirements for materials and any substitute materials have been determined to be a functional equivalent in accordance with policies governing contractor substitution of materials.

    C-3. The following will not be accepted as integral:

    a. The proposed in-kind contributions are not part of the Federal project.

    b. The proposed in-kind contributions consist of performance of activities that are inherently Governmental responsibilities (e.g., management of Government contracts; performance of District Quality Review, Agency Technical Review, Independent External Peer Review, or Policy Compliance Review; determining if Value Engineering evaluations are acceptable; determining the LERRD required for the project or separable element of the project; determining the value of LERRD for crediting purposes; or making determinations as to compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations).

    c. The proposed in-kind contributions are features or obligations that are a 100 percent non-Federal sponsor responsibility (e.g., purposes of land reclamation, local drainage, to protect against land or bank erosion, and/or the removal of hazardous, toxic, or radioactive wastes; local service facilities; betterments; acquisition and performance of LERRD, except for the provision of dredged or excavated material disposal facilities for commercial navigation projects; and performance of OMRR&R);

    d. The proposed in-kind contributions have or will create a hazard to human life or property.

    e. The proposed in-kind contributions have been determined to be environmentally unacceptable.

    f. For proposed in-kind contributions performed prior to execution of the applicable cost sharing agreement, after review or inspection, as applicable, the Government cannot certify the proposed in-kind contributions were accomplished in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

    g. For proposed in-kind contributions performed prior to execution of the applicable cost sharing agreement, the non-Federal sponsor has not performed the necessary operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement.

    [FR Doc. 2015-21355 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Announcement of a Public Hearing for the Installation of a Terminal Groin Structure at the Eastern End of Holden Beach, Extending into the Atlantic Ocean, West of Lockwood Folly Inlet (Brunswick County, NC) 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), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, from the Town of Holden Beach to install a terminal groin structure on the east end of Holden Beach, extending into the Atlantic Ocean, just west of Lockwood Folly Inlet.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the DEIS will be received until 5 p.m., October 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of comments and questions regarding the DEIS may be submitted to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, c/o Mrs. Emily Hughes. ATTN: File Number SAW-2011-01914, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about the proposed action and DEIS can be directed to Mrs. Emily Hughes, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone: (910) 251-4635, facsimile (910) 251-4025, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Project Description. The Town of Holden Beach is seeking Federal and State authorization for construction of a terminal groin, and associated beach fillet with required long-term maintenance, to be located at the eastern end of Holden Beach. The proposed terminal groin and beach fillet is the Town's Applicant Preferred alternative (Alternative 6—Intermediate Terminal Groin and Beach Nourishment) of six alternatives considered in this document. Under the Applicant's preferred alternative, the main stem of the terminal groin would include a 700-foot long segment extending seaward from the toe of the primary dune and a 300-foot anchor segment extending landward from the toe of the primary dune. The groin would also include a 120-ft-long shore-parallel T-Head segment centered on the seaward terminus of the main stem designed to prevent flanking. This is expected to have more of a stabilizing effect on the shoreline and minimize formation of potential offshore rip currents and sand losses during extreme wave conditions.

    The seaward section of the groin would be constructed with loosely placed 4- to 5-ft-diameter granite armor stone to facilitate the movement of sand past the structure, and would have a crest width of ~5 ft and a base width of ~40 ft, while the underlying geo-textile base layer would have a slightly greater width of ~45 ft. The shore anchorage segment would be entirely buried at the completion of groin construction and would remain buried so long as the position of the MHW line remains seaward of the initial post-construction primary dune line. The intermediate groin would be designed to be a relatively low-profile structure to maximize sand overpassing and to minimize impacts to beach recreation and aesthetics.

    The proposed terminal groin is one of four such structures approved by the General Assembly to be constructed in North Carolina following passing of Senate Bill (SB) 110. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) determined that there is sufficient information to conclude that the project would result in significant adverse impact on the human environment, and has prepared a DEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives considering the project's purpose and need. The purpose and need of the proposed Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project is to provide shoreline protection that would mitigate ongoing chronic erosion on the eastern portion on the Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the integrity of its public infrastructure, provide protection to existing development, and ensure the continued public use of the oceanfront beach along this area.

    2. Issues. There are several potential environmental and public interest issues that are addressed in the DEIS. Public interest issues include, but are not limited to, the following: public safety, aesthetics, recreation, navigation, infrastructure, economics, and noise pollution. Additional issues may be identified during the public review process. Issues initially identified as potentially significant include:

    a. Potential impacts to marine biological resources (burial of benthic organisms, passageway for fish and other marine life) and Essential Fish Habitat.

    b. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered marine mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, and plants.

    c. Potential for effects/changes to Holden Beach, Oak Island, Lockwood Folly inlet, and the AIWW respectively.

    d. Potential impacts to navigation.

    e. Potential effects on federal navigation maintenance regimes, including the Federal project.

    f. Potential effects of shoreline protection.

    g. Potential impacts on public health and safety.

    h. Potential impacts to recreational and commercial fishing.

    i. Potential impacts to cultural resources.

    j. Potential impacts to future dredging and nourishment activities.

    3. Alternatives. Six alternatives are being considered for the proposed project. These alternatives, including the No Action alternative, were further formulated and developed during the scoping process and are considered in the DEIS. A summary of alternatives under consideration are provided below:

    a. Alternative 1—No Action (Continue Current Management Practices);

    b. Alternative 2—Abandon and Retreat;

    c. Alternative 3—Beach Nourishment Only;

    d. Alternative 4—Inlet Management and Beach Nourishment;

    e. Alternative 5—Short Terminal Groin with Beach Nourishment;

    f. Alternative 6—Intermediate Terminal Groin with Beach Nourishment/Applicants Preferred Alternative.

    4. Scoping Process. Project Review Team meetings were held to receive comments and assess concerns regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the DEIS. Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons participated in these Project Review Team meetings.

    The Corps will initiate consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Corps will also consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act. The Corps will coordinate with the State Department of Cultural Resources pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    Potential water quality concerns will be addressed pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act through coordination with the North Carolina Divisions of Coastal Management (DCM) and Water Resources (DWR). This coordination will ensure consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act and project compliance with water quality standards. The Corps has coordinated closely with DCM in the development of the DEIS to ensure the process complies with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, as well as the NEPA requirements. The DEIS has been designed to consolidate both NEPA and SEPA processes to eliminate duplications.

    5. Availability of the DEIS. The DEIS has been published and circulated. The DEIS for the proposal can be found at the following link:http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/MajorProjects under Holden Beach Terminal Groin—Corps ID # SAW-2011-01914. The public is invited to attend, and/or comment at, a public hearing to be held at the Holden Beach Town Hall, located at 110 Rothschild St, Holden Beach, NC 28462, on September 24, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.

    Dated: August 21, 2015. Henry M. Wicker, Jr., Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21282 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Hearing and meeting notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published a notice in the Federal Register of July 27, 2015, (80 FR 44335), concerning a two-session public hearing and meeting on August 26, 2015, at the Three Rivers Convention Center, 7016 West Grandridge Boulevard, Kennewick, Washington 99352. The Board amends that notice as set forth below to postpone the Session II open meeting and supplement the Session I hearing.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 27, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-18405, on page 44335, correct the notice by postponing the Session II open meeting portion of the proceeding due to the health reasons of a Board Member. It is expected the Session II open meeting will be rescheduled and separately noticed at some point in the future. The Session I hearing portion of the proceeding will proceed as originally scheduled to convene at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with a revised agenda. The July 25, 2015, notice should be supplemented in the “Matters To Be Considered” section, in the second column, beginning on line 16, after the word “progress.”, with the following additional information from the revised agenda concerning the hearing portion of the proceeding: “The Board will then receive testimony from a senior Board technical staff employee concerning the Board staff's perspective on the status of DOE's execution of the Implementation Plan for Board Recommendation 2011-1, corrective actions taken in response to Board Recommendation 2011-1 at WTP, and the results from the extent of condition reviews conducted by DOE.”

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21411 Filed 8-26-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0108] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) Second Follow-up Main Study and 2018 Panel Maintenance AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0108. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, (202) 502-7411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) Second Follow-up Main Study and 2018 Panel Maintenance.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0852.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 32,107.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 24,904.

    Abstract: The High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) is a nationally representative, longitudinal study of more than 20,000 9th graders in 944 schools in 2009 who are being followed through their secondary and postsecondary years. The study focuses on understanding students' trajectories from the beginning of high school into postsecondary education or the workforce and beyond. What students decide to pursue when, why, and how are crucial questions for HSLS:09, especially, but not solely, in regards to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses, majors, and careers. To date, HSLS:09 measured math achievement gains in the first 3 years of high school and, like past studies, surveyed students, their parents, school administrators, school counselors, and teachers. After the initial 2009 data collection, the main study students were re-surveyed in 2012 when most were high school 11th-graders, and again in 2013 when most had just graduated from high school. The second follow-up data collection will take place in early 2016, and will consist of a survey, postsecondary transcript collection, financial aid records collection, and file matching to extant data sources. The second follow-up focuses on postsecondary attendance patterns, field of study selection processes with particular emphasis on STEM, the postsecondary academic and social experience, education financing, employment history including instances of unemployment and underemployment, job characteristics including income and benefits, job values, family formation, and civic engagement. The HSLS:09 data elements are designed to support research that speaks to the underlying dynamics and education processes that influence student achievement, growth, and personal development over time. This request is to conduct the HSLS:09 Second Follow-up Main Study interviews in 2016, the transcript and student financial aid records collections in 2017, and panel maintenance activities in 2018.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21342 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0084] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual State Application Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0084. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, (202) 245-7399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Annual State Application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0030.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 60.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 840.

    Abstract: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, signed on December 3, 2004, became Pub. L. 108-446. In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1412(a) a State is eligible for assistance under part B for a fiscal year if the State submits a plan that provides assurances to the Secretary that the State has in effect policies and procedures to ensure that the State meets each of the conditions found in 20 U.S.C. 1412. States will provide assurances that it either has or does not have in effect policies and procedures to meet the eligibility requirements of part B of the Act as found in Pub. L. 108-446. Information Collection 1820-0030 corresponds with 34 CFR 300.100-176; 300.199; 300.640-645; and 300.705. These sections include the requirement that the Secretary and local educational agencies located in the State be notified of any State-imposed rule, regulation, or policy that is not required by this title and Federal regulations.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21297 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Open Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. 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:

    Thursday, September 17, 2015, 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737, [email protected]

    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 • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Approval of July Minutes • Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments • Federal Coordinator's Comments • Liaison's Comments • EM SSAB Chairs' Meeting Recap • Discussion on Contract Provisions for Community Investment Memorandum • Administrative Issues • Election of Chair and Vice Chair • Adoption of Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan • Subcommittee Updates • Public Comments • Final Comments from the Board • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, 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 Greg Simonton 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 agenda items should contact Greg Simonton 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 Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 25, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21324 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. PP-371] Notice of Public Hearings for the Draft Northern Pass Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0463) AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of DOE's proposed Federal action of issuing a Presidential permit to the Applicant: Northern Pass LLC, to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S./Canada border in northern New Hampshire.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by October 29, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the dates and times of the public hearings.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to:

    Mr. Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Via email to: [email protected] By facsimile to: (202) 586-8008 Or through the project Web site at: http://www.northernpasseis.us/

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the locations of the public hearings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Brian Mills at the addresses above, or at 202-586-8267.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE will conduct public hearings to receive oral comments on the draft EIS at the following locations commencing at the times identified:

    Concord: Tuesday October 06, 2015, 6:00 p.m., Grappone Conference Center, Granite Ballroom, 70 Constitution Avenue, Concord, NH 03301. Whitefield: Wednesday October 07, 2015, 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mountain View Grand Resort and Spa, Presidential Room, 101 Mountain View Road, Whitefield, NH 03598. Plymouth: Thursday October 08, 2015, 6:00 p.m., Plymouth State University, Ice Arena Welcome Center, 129 NH Route 175A, Holderness, NH 03245.

    Requests to pre-register to provide oral comments at a public hearing should be addressed to the Northern Pass EIS Team at this email address: [email protected] Please include your full name and email address, and specify the location you request to speak at. For the Whitefield, NH meeting, please indicate which meeting time you wish to speak at. Please state in the subject line, “NP Draft EIS Public Hearing Speaker Request.” Please submit your request by September 30, 2015; requests received by that date will be given priority in the speaking order. However, requests to speak may also be made at the hearing. The speaking order will be as follows: (1) Elected Officials; (2) Pre-registered speakers (order determined on a first-come, first-served basis); (3) Speakers registering at the meeting. Pre-registered speakers who have requested to speak at a specific time will be accommodated as possible. Requests to provide oral comments at the public hearings may be made at the time of the hearing(s).

    DOE invites interested Members of Congress, state and local governments, other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, organizations, and members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIS during the 90-day public comment period. The public comment period started on July 31, 2015, with the publication in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of its Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS, and will continue until October 29, 2015.

    Comments on the draft EIS can be submitted verbally during public hearings or in writing to Mr. Brian Mills using the methods set out in the ADDRESSES section. Please mark envelopes and electronic mail subject lines as “NP Draft EIS Comments.” Written and oral comments will be given equal weight and all comments received or postmarked by that date will be considered by DOE in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    Availability of the Draft EIS The document is available online at http://www.northernpasseis.us/. Copies of the draft EIS are also available at a number of public libraries and town halls (a list of locations is found here: http://media.northernpasseis.us/media/DraftEIS_Hard_Copy_Locations.pdf) Printed copies of the document may be obtained by contacting Mr. Mills at the above address.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 19, 2015. Patricia A. Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21317 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-93-000] Eric S. Morris v. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, SERC Reliability Corporation; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on August 21, 2015, pursuant to sections 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825(e) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Eric S. Morris (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) (collectively, Respondents), alleging that the Respondents violated the NERC on Rules of Procedure Appendix 4B Sanction Guidelines in NERC Full Notice of Penalty regarding Entergy, FERC Docket No. NP15-31 filed July 30, 2015.

    Eric S. Morris certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for NERC and SERC as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2015.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21387 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1823-001.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing to Update Pending Records in SA17 Western to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1824-001.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing to Update Pending Records in SA 59 Western to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150821-5238.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1840-001.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing to Update Pending Records in SA 275 CDWR WPA to be effective 7/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150821-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1919-002.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2015-08-21 Deficiency Letter Response to be effective 10/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150821-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1823-001.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing to Update Pending Records in SA17 Western to be effective 8/1/2015 .

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2510-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 135—Common Facilities Agrmt to be effective 10/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2511-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 134—Project Services Agreement to be effective 10/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2512-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2415R4 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2513-000

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2562R3 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2514-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2900R4 KMEA NITSA NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    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 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21386 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Exempt Docket No. File date Presenter or requester 1. CP15-115-000 8-17-15 Mary Jo Tambulin, Niagara County Legislature, NY. Dated: August 24, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21388 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0163; FRL-9931-26] Amendments, Extensions, and/or Issuances of Experimental Use Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has granted amendments, extensions, and/or issuances of experimental use permits (EUPs) to the pesticide applicants described in Unit II. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

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

    II. EUPs

    EPA has issued the following EUPs:

    1. 524-EUP-104. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0780). Amendments and Extensions. Monsanto Co., 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. The EUP amendments/extensions were issued on February 18, 2014 and February 4, 2015, and allow planting and associated activities, e.g., collection of field data, harvesting, and processing of corn plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) seeds containing MON 87411 with a corn rootworm-protecting double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) in combination with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins (Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry1F, Vip3Aa20, Cry3Bb1, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, and/or Cry1Ab). Testing includes the evaluation of the efficacy of insect resistant transgenes, evaluation of agronomic performance, and production of sample material for regulatory studies. The 2014 amendment/extension tests are authorized from February 18, 2014, through February 29, 2016, in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico and in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. 13,558 and 18,311 PIP acres are authorized for 2014 and 2015 plantings, respectively, with up to 1.1 × 10−5 pound of DvSnf7 dsRNA. The 2015 amendment/extension tests are authorized from February 04, 2015, through February 28, 2017, in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico and in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. 4,597 and 4,959 PIP acres are authorized for 2015 and 2016 plantings, respectively, with up to 9.75 × 10−4 pound of DvSnf7 dsRNA. Comments were received in response to the notice of receipt, and EPA's response to these comments can be found in the docket assigned to this EUP.

    2. 524-EUP-107. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0515). Issuance. Monsanto Co., 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. This EUP allows the use of 223,200 pounds of soybean seed containing 0.714 pound of Bt Cry1A.105 protein and 1.14 pounds of Bt Cry2Ab2 protein on 3,720 acres to evaluate the control of lepidopteran soybean pests. The program is authorized only in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico and in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from April 27, 2015, to December 31, 2016.

    3. 8917-EUP-2. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0516). Issuance. J.R. Simplot Co., 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706. This EUP allows the use of 3,213,125 pounds of seed potatoes containing 0.0964 pound of Vnt1 protein (or 9.64 × 10−2 pound of Vnt1 protein) on 1,285.25 acres to evaluate resistance to Phytophthora infestans (commonly known as late blight of potatoes). The program is authorized only in the states of Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from February 4, 2015, to December 31, 2015.

    4. 62719-EUP-66. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0521). Issuance. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054. This EUP allows the use of 19.63 pounds of active ingredient (1.139, 0.3416, 1.961 × 10−6, 1.309, 14.07, 0.3443, and 2.428 pounds of Bt Cry1A.105 protein, Bt Cry2Ab2 protein, DvSnf7 dsRNA, Bt Cry1F protein, Bt Cry34Ab1 protein, Bt Cry35Ab1 protein, and Bt Cry3Bb1 protein, respectively) in 1,113,853 pounds of corn seed and involves 9,038 acres (i.e., 6,361 PIP acres, 1,061 non-PIP acres, and 1,616 border acres) for inbred and hybrid development, nursery observations, and testing and collection of product characterization data. The program is authorized only in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico and in the states of Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from December 18, 2014, to March 31, 2016. EPA received two comments, one that was anonymous and one from a private citizen, in response to the notice of receipt for this EUP. Both comments generally expressed opposition to pesticides, biotechnology, corporations, and/or EPA's approval of this EUP. EPA conducted risk and other assessments on the testing program proposed and the PIP active ingredients to be tested. Based upon these scientific assessments, EPA concluded that the active ingredients to be tested are not expected to cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment and that the applicant's limited testing was needed to accumulate information for a Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration. Pursuant to its authority under FIFRA and without further consideration of these comments, EPA therefore proceeded forward with issuance of this EUP.

    5. 88232-EUP-1. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0835). Issuance. Southern Gardens Citrus, LLC, 1820 County Rd. 833, Clewiston, FL 33440. This EUP allows the use of 50 kilograms (in Florida) and 25 kilograms (in Texas) of the PIP with the spinach defensin proteins (SoD2 and SoD7) on 720 acres (600 PIP acres and 120 border acres) of citrus plants to evaluate the control of citrus greening disease. The program is authorized only in the states of Florida and Texas. The EUP is effective from April 30, 2015, to April 18, 2018. EPA received two comments in support of the EUP on the notice of receipt, and the Agency has no further response to these comments.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. John E. Leahy, Jr., Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21380 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500; FRL-9933-17-OAR] Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the “Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)” is being extended by 30 days.

    DATES:

    Comments. The public comment period for the notice of data availability published August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46271), is being extended by 30 days to October 23, 2015, in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the notice (80 FR 46271) for the addresses and detailed instructions.

    Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on the emissions data and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-2478; fax number: (919) 541-1903; email: [email protected] For questions on the air quality modeling and ozone contributions and how to submit comments on the air quality modeling data and related methodologies, contact Norm Possiel, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-5692; fax number: (919) 541-0044; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment Period

    The EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days. The public comment period will end on October 23, 2015, rather than September 23, 2015. This will ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on all of the available information.

    Dated: August 19, 2015. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21381 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0776; FRL-9933-14-OEI] Creation of a New System of Records Notice: Eventbrite AGENCY:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of the Chief Financial Officer is giving notice that it proposes to create a new system of records pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). This system of records contains personally identifiable information (PII) collected from individuals registering to attend EPA-hosted meetings and events.

    DATES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by October 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0776, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 202-566-1752.

    Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Hand Delivery: OEI Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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-OEI-2014-0776. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information for which 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 OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Orquina, U.S. EPA, 202-564-0446.

    SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: General Information

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to create a Privacy Act system of records for the online registration tool, Eventbrite. Eventbrite is a free, online registration tool that can be used to collect basic information for meetings and other events. Agency users can customize the registration page to a certain degree and upload images, such as a company logo or seal. For official EPA business, Agency users are permitted to upload the EPA logo or seal, and follow the format, U.S. EPA Meeting/Event Name, for their title. The information collected by Eventbrite is used to determine the number of participants attending an event and may also be used to print nametags or tent cards. In order to register for an EPA meeting or event, it is necessary to collect basic personal information, such as name, title, organization, mailing address, email address, and phone number. This information will be used for internal Agency purposes only and will not be shared with a third party other than Eventbrite. The information collected will be used for the specific event only and will not be used for marketing or other purposes after the event has concluded. The individual attending the meeting will be permitted to opt out of using the online registration tool if they prefer not to share their information in this manner. On the Eventbrite page, the event organizer can enter contact information for a designated point of contact who can answer questions about the event or collect registration information over the phone. This tool may be used by EPA employees at no cost to the government. In order to use this tool for official EPA business, an account must be set up using an epa.gov email address, for example, [email protected]

    Each Eventbrite registration Web site has a unique “URL” or Web site address associated with it. The URL can only be accessed by individuals who receive it from the event organizer. There will be no publicly accessible Web site that will list invitation-only events and so there will not be an opportunity for anyone other than the intended audience to register for such events. Registration information will be saved on the password-protected Eventbrite.com Web site and only the designated organizer for a given event will be authorized and permitted to access the information. Once accessed and downloaded, the registration information will be saved on the EPA server. There will be no central location on the EPA server where registration information will be maintained. Registration information will be saved by the event organizer in the EPA office that is organizing the event. Therefore, the only person or people who will have access to the registration information will be EPA staff who have access to the EPA network drive used to store the information. Each office has their own secure network drive, so the information collected by each office will be secure within that office.

    Dated: August 19, 2015. Ann Dunkin, Chief Information Officer. EPA-69 System Name:

    Eventbrite.

    System Location:

    Records are located in EPA offices, on computer servers in Headquarters, Regional Offices and at the third-party location.

    Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:

    Any individual that registers for an EPA-organized event using Eventbrite.com.

    Categories of Records in the System:

    Information to be collected for purposes of creating an attendee roster for a specific event. Information collected may include name, title, organization, mailing address, email address, phone number, and special accommodations (such as visual or hearing impairment).

    Authority for Maintenance of the System (includes any revisions or amendments):

    Section 2 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, 44 U.S.C. 3601 n.); Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501)

    Purpose(s):

    The purpose of the Eventbrite tool is to collect information on meeting attendees that can be used for a head count, attendee roster, or printed materials, such as nametags and tent cards.

    Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses:

    General routine uses B, H, I, J, K, and L apply to this system. (A detailed description of these routine uses can be found in the Agency's Systems of Records Web site at http://www.epa.gov/privacy/notice/general.htm.)

    Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System:

    Storage: Once information is downloaded from the Eventbrite site to the EPA server, it will be saved to a secure drive in the office that is organizing the event. Records will be saved in electronic format. A printed registration list may be generated for the specific event to be used onsite to track participation, but the list will not be duplicated or distributed to meeting attendees or other event participants.

    Retrievability: Registration information is downloaded from the Eventbrite site in Microsoft Excel format. Each record includes the date the participant registered. Records saved in Excel format may be sorted and retrieved by any of the categories included on the registration form used for any particular event (i.e., name, email address, state, organization, or job title). Files may be saved in Excel or PDF format.

    Safeguards: This information can only be downloaded from the Eventbrite site by the event organizer, using an account specific password. The information will be saved on EPA's secure server within the event sponsoring office. The only EPA staff who will be able to access the registration information are those staff with security access to their office's server.

    Retention and Disposal: Records stored in this system are subject to Schedule 483.

    System Manager(s) and Address:

    Acting Associate Director of Web Communications and Social Media Lead, OPA/OWC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Notification Procedure:

    Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records contains a record about him or her, who wants access to his or her record, or who wants to contest the contents of a record, should make a written request to the EPA FOIA Office, Attn: EPA Privacy Officer, MC2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Record Access Procedure:

    Individuals seeking access to information in this system of records about themselves are required to provide adequate identification (e.g. driver's license, military identification card, employee badge or identification card). Additional identity verification procedures may be required, as warranted. Requests must meet the requirements of EPA regulations that implement the Privacy Act of 1974, at 40 CFR part 16.

    Contesting Records Procedures:

    Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be changed and the corrective action sought. The EPA's procedures for making a Privacy Act request can be found in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

    Record Source Categories:

    The information stored in the system will be provided by the individuals registering for an EPA event.

    System Exempted from Certain Provisions of the Privacy Act:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2015-21384 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9022-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 08/17/2015 Through 08/21/2015

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150237, Final, USFS, AZ, Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project, review period ends: 10/02/2015, Contact: Marcos Roybal 928-635-8210. EIS No. 20150238, Draft, USFWS, MA,Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, comment period ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Nancy McGarigal 413-253-8562. EIS No. 20150239, Final Supplement, FHWA, DC, South Capitol Street Project, Contact: Michael Hicks 202-219-3513 Under MAP-21 Section 1319, FHWA has issued a single FSEIS and ROD. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action. EIS No. 20150240, Draft, FTA, NC, Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project, comment period ends: 10/13/2015, Contact: Stan Mitchell 404-865-5643. EIS No. 20150241, Final, NPS, FL, Everglades National Park General Management Plan/East Everglades Wilderness Study, review period ends: 09/28/2015, Contact: Fred Herling 303-242-7704. EIS No. 20150242, Final, USFS, NM, Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Restoration Project, review period ends: 10/05/2015, Contact: Chris Napp 505-438-5448. EIS No. 20150243, Draft, USACE, NC, Holden Beach Shoreline Protection Project, comment period ends: 10/13/2015, Contact: Emily Hughes 910-251-4635. EIS No. 20150244, Final, USFS, CA, King Fire Restoration, Contact: Katy Parr 530-621-5203. The issuance of this Final EIS reflects the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) alternative arrangements granted in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11. CEQ specifically eliminated the 30-day waiting period between the publication of the FEIS and the Record of Decision. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150176, Draft, DOE, ID, Recapitalization of Infrastructure Supporting Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Handling (DOE/EIS-0453-D), comment period ends: 08/31/2015, Contact: Erik Anderson 202-781-6057. Revision to FR Notice Published 06/26/2015; DOE has reopened the comment period to end on 08/31/2015. Dated: August 25, 2015. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21379 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422; FRL-9933-23] Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment; Framework for Screening Analysis; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of July 29, 2015, announcing the availability of draft guidance for public comment entitled: “Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis.” This document extends the comment period for an additional 30 days, from August 28, 2015 to September 28, 2015. EPA is extending the comment period in response to requests for an extended comment period to allow for full participation.

    DATES:

    Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0422, must be received on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45218) (FRL-9930-32).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45218) (FRL-9930-32), in which EPA announced the availability of the following draft guidance for public comment: “Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis,” and solicited comments on a draft copy of the human health risk assessment where the cumulative assessment was conducted in conjunction with pending actions for abamectin. EPA is hereby extending the end of the comment period from August 28, 2015 to September 28, 2015.

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of July 29, 2015. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    FFDCA section 408(b) [21 U.S.C. 346a(b)].

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21483 Filed 8-26-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Revision and Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0072) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the revision and renewal of an existing collection of information, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on the renewal of the collection of information described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/

    Email: [email protected] Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202.898.3877), MB-3074 or John Popeo, Counsel, (202.898.6923), MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary A. Kuiper or John W. Popeo, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to revise and renew the following currently-approved collection of information:

    Title: Acquisition Services Information Requirements.

    OMB Number: 3064-0072.

    Form Numbers: 3064-1600/04, 1600-07, 3700-57, 3700/4A, 3700/12, 3700/44, 3700/59.

    Affected Public: State nonmember banks.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5135.

    Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: .5 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2434 hours.

    General Description of Collection: This is a collection of information involving the submission of various forms by contractors doing business with the FDIC.

    FDIC Form 3700/59, Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women, is a contract clause implementing Section 342 (c)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5452). The contract clause seeks a commitment from an FDIC Contractor to ensure, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and the workforces of its applicable subcontractors. Further, the clause asserts the FDIC's right to request documentation from the Contractor that demonstrates the Contractor's good faith effort to include minorities and women in its workforce and subcontractors' workforces, and requires the Contractor to annually certify that it has made such good faith efforts.

    FDIC Form 3700/04A, Contractor Representations and Certification, must be completed by any offeror that responds to a solicitation for an award over $100,000. The Form is being revised to add two certifications, “Certification Regarding Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women” and “Representation by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Federal Tax Liability.” The “Certification Regarding Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women” implements § 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5452) and requires an offeror to certify to its commitment to equal opportunity in employment and contracting and that it has made and will continue to make a good faith effort to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and in the workforce of its applicable subcontractors. The “Representation by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Federal Tax Liability” implements Section 744 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235)), by requiring an offeror to represent whether it is or is not “a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability.”

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the collections 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 25th day of August 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21335 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6741-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2015-N-07] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revision to an existing system of records; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is reissuing the system of records entitled “National Mortgage Database Project” (FHFA-21). FHFA is re-issuing this notice in response to comments received on the Notice published on April 16, 2014 at 79 FR 21458. In reissuing this notice, FHFA requests further comments on the below revisions to the existing system of records.

    This revised system of records covers the National Mortgage Database Project (“Project”), which is comprised of three components: (1) The National Mortgage Database (“NMDB”); (2) the information used to create the NMDB but will not be contained within the NMDB; and (3) National Surveys of Mortgage Borrowers (“Surveys”). The Project is designed to satisfy the Congressionally-mandated requirements of section 1324(c) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Under this statutory provision, FHFA must, through surveys of the mortgage market, collect information on the characteristics of individual mortgages, including those that are eligible for purchase by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as well as those that are not, and subprime and nontraditional mortgages, including information on the creditworthiness of those borrowers sufficient to determine whether they would have qualified for prime lending.

    DATES:

    To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or before October 27, 2015. The revisions to the existing system will become effective on November 6, 2015 unless comments necessitate otherwise. FHFA will publish a new notice if, in order to review comments, the effective date is delayed or if changes are made based on comments received.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by “2015-N-07,” using only one 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 FHFA. Please include “2015-N-07” in the subject line of the message.

    Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/2015-N-07, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. To ensure timely receipt of hand delivered package, please ensure that the package is delivered to the Seventh Street entrance Guard Desk, First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. to 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/2015-N-07, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please note that all mail sent to FHFA via the U.S. Postal Service is routed through a national irradiation facility, a process that may delay delivery by approximately two weeks. For any time-sensitive correspondence, please plan accordingly.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Forrest Pafenberg, Program Manager, National Mortgage Database Project, [email protected] or (202) 649-3129; Stacy Easter, Privacy Act Officer, [email protected] or (202) 649-3803; or David A. Lee, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, [email protected] or (202) 649-3803 (not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Comments

    FHFA seeks public comments on the revised system of records for the National Mortgage Database Project (FHFA-21) and will take all comments into consideration. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11). In addition to referencing “Comments/2015-N-07,” please reference “National Mortgage Database Project” (FHFA-21).

    All comments received will be posted without change on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov, and will include any personal information provided, such as name, address (mailing and email), and telephone numbers. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available without change for public inspection on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, 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. Introduction

    This revised system of records covers the National Mortgage Database Project (“Project”), which is comprised of three components: (1) The National Mortgage Database (“NMDB”); (2) the information used to create the NMDB but will not be contained within the NMDB; and (3) National Surveys of Mortgage Borrowers (“Surveys”). Each of these components is described below.

    The revised system of records, “National Mortgage Database Project” (FHFA-21), will contain records related to the creation of the NMDB. The core data for the NMDB are drawn from data maintained by one of the three national credit repositories as well as data to be drawn from: (1) Administrative data sources including existing mortgage data from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and other government agencies; (2) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data; and (3) other commercially available mortgage, property, and appraisal sources. Data from these various sources will be used to create and update the NMDB. Once the NMDB has been created from these sources, the input datasets will be permanently deleted and will not be maintained by the Project. The NMDB does not contain and is not a credit report or set of credit reports as defined under the Federal Credit Report Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

    Any information on borrower(s) in the NMDB that is available to FHFA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), or other authorized users of the NMDB is de-identified and does not include directly-identifiable information, such as borrower/co-borrower name, address, Social Security number or date of birth.

    Construction of the NMDB begins with a random 1-in-20 sample of all first lien mortgages in the credit repository's files that were outstanding at any time between January 1998 (the start date of the data collection at the credit repository) and June 2012 (the start date of the Project). Each quarter a random 1-in-20 sample of mortgages that are newly reported to the credit repository is added. Currently the NMDB has been updated with this credit repository data through June 2015 and it will continue to be updated in the future. Mortgages remain in the NMDB until they terminate through prepayment (including refinancing), foreclosure or maturity. Information from credit repository files on each borrower associated with the mortgages in the NMDB will be collected from one year prior to origination to one year after termination of the mortgage.

    In addition to the creation of the NMDB, the Project includes voluntary surveys of mortgage borrowers as part of the Surveys. The Surveys' target universe is first-lien closed-end residential mortgages and the associated borrowers. The Surveys supplement the NMDB with information not currently available through existing data sources. To achieve this objective, the Surveys draw their samples from mortgages that are part of the NMDB.

    Responses to the Surveys will be maintained in de-identified form as part of the Project. Individuals contacted by the Surveys may choose to opt out of any future communications about the Surveys. Participation in the Surveys and opt-out list is voluntary and the opt-out list is kept separate from the NMDB by a third party vendor. The opt-out list contains the name and address of those individuals who have opted out of receiving communications about the Surveys in order to ensure that these individuals do not receive any future communications about the Surveys after opting out. FHFA and CFPB employees will not have access to this list.

    This notice satisfies the Privacy Act requirement that an agency publishes a system of records notice in the Federal Register when there is an addition or change to the agency's systems of records. Although Congress established general exemptions and specific exemptions that could be used to exempt records from provisions of the Privacy Act, the Director of FHFA has determined that records and information in this system of records are not exempt from the requirements of the Privacy Act.

    As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (61 FR 6427, 6435 (February 20, 1996)), FHFA has submitted a report describing the system of records covered by this notice to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget.

    III. Revised System of Records

    The revised system of records notice is set out in its entirety and described in detail below. The revisions from the previous SORN that FHFA issued in April 2014 include: (1) Deleting certain data fields that will not be collected and will not be part of the Project (i.e., language, religion, census block, telephone number, and latitude/longitude); (2) clearly delineating the individuals covered by the system; (3) deleting various routine uses and adding one where de-identified data may be shared with federal financial regulators and other U.S. Government agencies for supervisory purposes and for conducting research and analysis related to the mortgage markets; (4) clearly articulating that for purposes of updating the database, information will be updated through a de-identified database-specific constructed loan identifier or encrypted unique identification numbers that will be used solely to aid in the compiling and tracking of the data used from other matching datasets; and (5) notifying the public of the existence of an opt-out list and the information contained therein.

    FHFA-21 SYSTEM NAME:

    National Mortgage Database Project.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Sensitive but unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, and Experian Information Solutions Inc., 475 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Across the three components of the National Mortgage Database Project, information about individuals in the system will contain records that have been collected from: (1) Credit repository data; (2) administrative data sources including existing mortgage data from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and other government agencies; (3) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data; (4) members of the public as part of the National Surveys of Mortgage Borrowers; and (5) other commercially available mortgage, property, and appraisal sources.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    This revised system of records covers the National Mortgage Database Project (“Project”), which is comprised of three components: (1) The National Mortgage Database (“NMDB”); (2) the information used to create the NMDB but will not be contained within the NMDB; and (3) National Surveys of Mortgage Borrowers (“Surveys”). Across these three components of the NMDB Project, records include five forms of loan-level data: mortgage record, real estate transaction, household demographic data on the borrower(s), physical characteristics of the house and neighborhood, and performance data on the mortgage and credit lines (i.e., credit cards, student loans, auto loans, and other loans reported to credit bureaus) of the mortgage borrower(s). The three components are described below.

    Under the first component and when the development phase of the NMDB is completed, the NMDB will contain de-identified records of borrowers and properties associated with a 1-in-20 nationally representative random sample of mortgages. These de-identified records may include: (1) Borrower(s) information (age, ZIP Code, race/ethnicity, gender, presence of children by various age categories, household income, credit score(s) of borrower(s) at origination, deceased indicator, and marital status); (2) Mortgage Information (current balance, actual monthly payment, delinquency grid, scheduled monthly payment, refinanced amount, and bankruptcy information); (3) Credit card/other loan information (account type, credit amount, account balance amount, account past due amount, account minimum payment amount, account actual payment amount, account high balance amount, account charge off amount, and second mortgage); (4) Property Attributes (property type, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, square footage, lot size, year built/age of structure, units in structure, most recent assessed value (per tax roll), year of most recent assessed value, effective age of structure, project name, and neighborhood name); (5) Real Estate Transaction Attributes (sales price, down payment, occupancy status (own, rent), new versus existing home, county, census tract, and date purchased); and (6) Mortgage Characteristics Attributes (mortgage product and purpose, origination date, acquisition date, amount of mortgage, refinanced amount, amount of down payment, term of mortgage, interest rate of mortgage, source of mortgage/mortgage channel, mortgage insurance type, loan to value at origination, origination amount/credit limit, originator, servicer(s), debt to income ratio at origination, number of borrower(s), number of units covered by the mortgage and the total number of units in the associated property, presence of prepayment penalty, origination points paid by borrower(s), discount points paid by borrower(s), balloon payment date/amount, percent of down payment, and secondary market indicator).

    Under the second component, and solely for the purposes of matching records in the NMDB with other datasets as part of the construction of the NMDB, records may include: borrower(s) information such as name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, and mortgage account number. Records with direct identifying information, including name, address, Social Security numbers, date of birth, and mortgage account numbers, will be used solely by a credit repository behind a firewall for purposes of matching the records with other datasets, which will better enable FHFA to perform the statutory functions identified below. FHFA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) employees will not have access to this direct identifying information.

    The matching will be conducted by a credit repository. The matching will be conducted behind a firewall using a blind matching process on a 1-in-20 nationally representative random sample. FHFA and CFPB employees will not have access to this blind matching process.

    After the matching is complete, the records with direct identifying information (name, Social Security number, date of birth, and mortgage account number) will be permanently destroyed by the credit repository and will not be maintained. A de-identified dataset, as described above, will be used for conducting research on and analysis of the mortgage markets.

    FHFA may obtain updates or supplements to this de-identified dataset and, in those circumstances, may use record locaters unique to the source providing the update in order to update or supplement records. In these instances, FHFA's credit repository vendor may retain property address solely for the purpose of updating matches or conducting future matches with new data sets. FHFA and CFBP employees will not have access to this information.

    Under the third component, the Surveys will collect and maintain records on demographic information from a subset of individuals who voluntarily respond to the Surveys to include: education status, military status, financial events and life events in the last couple of years, and assets and wealth. An opt-out list will be maintained by a third party vendor containing the name and address for those individuals who have opted-out in order to ensure that they do not receive future communications from the Surveys. FHFA and CFPB employees will not have access to this list.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513, 4543, and section 1324 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) as amended by section 1125 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 4544 and 4544(c)).

    PURPOSE(S):

    The records in this system of records are collected and maintained in order to facilitate mandatory reporting under the Safety and Soundness Act as well as to conduct research, performance modeling, and examination monitoring. The statutory mandate for a monthly mortgage market survey requires FHFA to survey the full breadth of the mortgage market, including mortgages that are eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and those that are not. Under this statutory mandate, FHFA is required to collect data on the characteristics of individual mortgages including, among other items, the price of the property, the terms of mortgages, and the creditworthiness of borrowers. The records in the opt-out list are maintained by a third party vendor in order to ensure that those individuals who have opted out of receiving communications about the Surveys do not receive any further communications.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside FHFA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    (1) When (a) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) FHFA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by FHFA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FHFA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    (2) To members of advisory committees that are created by FHFA or by Congress to render advice and recommendations to FHFA or to Congress, to be used solely in connection with their official, designated functions.

    (3) To contractor personnel and other authorized individuals working on a contract, cooperative agreement, or project for FHFA or CFPB related to the NMDB.

    (4) To the Office of Management and Budget, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, or other federal financial regulatory agencies to obtain advice regarding statutory, regulatory, policy, and other requirements related to the purpose for which FHFA collected the records.

    (5) To the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    (6) To a federal agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.

    (7) To an FHFA regulated entity.

    (8) De-identified, anonymized data with the CFPB in order to facilitate reporting under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203), as well as to conduct research, performance modeling, and market monitoring.

    (9) De-identified, anonymized data to federal financial regulators and other U.S. Government agencies for conducting research and analysis related to the mortgage markets and for supervisory purposes; servicers are not identified and information cannot be used for enforcement actions against servicers.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Records are maintained in electronic format, paper form, and magnetic disk or tape. Electronic records are stored in computerized databases. Paper and magnetic disk or tape records are stored in locked file rooms, locked file cabinets, or locked safes.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    For the purposes of compiling data from the data sources under the second component of the Project, the records may contain anonymized personal identifiers (i.e., a database-specific constructed loan identifier or encrypted unique identification numbers) for purposes of matching the records with other datasets. After the matching is complete, a de-identified copy of the matched dataset will be used under the first component of the Project for conducting research and analysis as described above. FHFA may retain these anonymized personal identifiers after the matching, but only for the purpose of performing similar matches on future data acquisitions. Under the third component of the Project for the Surveys opt-out list, information will be held by a third party vendor and may be retrieved by that vendor by name or address.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. Buildings where records are stored have security cameras and 24-hour security guard service. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of access codes and other information technology security measures. Paper records are safeguarded by locked file rooms, locked file cabinets, or locked safes. Access to the records is restricted to those individuals who require access to the records in the performance of official duties related to the purposes for which the system is maintained and who have agreed, in writing, to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the data.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Records are maintained in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration and FHFA retention schedules. Records are disposed of according to accepted techniques.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Project Manager, National Mortgage Database Project, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Direct inquiries as to whether this system contains a record pertaining to an individual to the Privacy Act Officer. Inquiries may be mailed to the Privacy Act Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or electronically at http://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/FOIAPrivacy/Pages/Privacy.aspx in accordance with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR part 1204.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Direct requests for access to the Privacy Act Officer. Requests may be mailed to the Privacy Act Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or can be submitted electronically at http://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/FOIAPrivacy/Pages/Privacy.aspx in accordance with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR part 1204.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Direct requests to contest or appeal an adverse decision for a record to the Privacy Act Appeals Officer. Requests may be mailed to the Privacy Act Appeals Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or can be submitted electronically at http://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/FOIAPrivacy/Pages/Privacy.aspx in accordance with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR part 1204.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The information in this system will be obtained from: (1) Credit repository data; (2) administrative data sources, including mortgage data from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Banks, FHA, VA, and other government agencies; (3) HMDA data; (4) other commercially-available mortgage, property, and appraisal sources; and (5) individuals who voluntarily respond to the Surveys.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    Dated: August 20, 2015. Melvin L. Watt, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21288 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 14, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. William M. Pfeffer, New Berlin, Illinois, individually and acting in concert with Mary Bobett Gerlach, Springfield, Illinois; Betsy Pech, Lincoln, Illinois; and Barbara Pfeffer, Herrin, Illinois, as beneficiaries of the Robert Pfeffer Trust, as amended June 14, 1999; to acquire voting shares of WB Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Warren-Boynton State Bank, both in New Berlin, Illinois.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. Smith Stock Ownership Trust, Guy Richard Smith and Courtney B. Smith Miller as trustees; all of Hot Springs, Arkansas; to acquire voting shares of Smith Associated Banking Corporation, Hot Springs, Arkansas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Salem, Salem, Arkansas, and Security Bank, Stephens, Arkansas.

    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Cheryl A. Carr, Brett S. Carr, both of Wichita, Kansas; Nancy B. Carr, Terry L. Carr, both of Leawood, Kansas; and Erin B. Hamell, Andover, Kansas; to become part of the Carr family group acting in concert, and to acquire voting shares of Community State Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Community Bank of Wichita, Inc., both in Wichita, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 25, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21313 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of the Extension for Three Years, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfer Act).

    Agency form number: Reg E.

    OMB control number: 7100-0200.

    Frequency: Event-generated.

    Reporters: State member banks, their subsidiaries, subsidiaries of bank holding companies, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than federal branches, federal agencies, and insured state branches of foreign banks), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601-604a; 611-631).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Initial disclosures, 6,363 hours; Change-in-terms, 5,769 hours; Periodic statements, 15,960 hours; Error resolution, 15,270 hours; Gift card exclusion policies and procedures, 8,144 hours; Gift card policy and procedures, 8,144 hours; Remittance transfer disclosures (one-time), 122,160 hours; Remittance transfer disclosures (ongoing), 97,728 hours; Error notice from sender (consumers)(ongoing), 61,083 hours; Time limits and extent of investigation (ongoing), 54,972 hours; Transmitter error resolution standards and recordkeeping requirements (one-time), 40,720 hours; Transmitter error resolution standards and recordkeeping requirements (ongoing), 8,144 hours; Acts of agents (one-time), 40,720 hours; Acts of agents (ongoing), 8,144 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Initial disclosures, 1.5 minutes; Change-in-terms, 1 minute; Periodic statements, 7 hours; Error resolution, 30 minutes; Gift card exclusion policies and procedures, 8 hours; Gift card policy and procedures, 8 hours; Remittance transfer disclosures (one-time), 120 hours; Remittance transfer disclosures (ongoing), 8 hours; Error notice from sender (consumers)(ongoing), 5 minutes; Time limits and extent of investigation (ongoing), 4.5 hours; Transmitter error resolution standards and recordkeeping requirements (one-time), 40 hours; Transmitter error resolution standards and recordkeeping requirements (ongoing), 8 hours; Acts of agents (one-time), 40 hours; Acts of agents (ongoing), 8 hours.

    Number of respondents: Initial disclosures, 1,018 respondents; Change-in-terms, 1,018 respondents; Periodic statements, 190 respondents; Error resolution, 1,018 respondents; Gift card exclusion policies and procedures, 1,018 respondents; Gift card policy and procedures, 1,018 respondents; Remittance transfer disclosures (one-time), 1,018 respondents; Remittance transfer disclosures (ongoing), 1,018 respondents; Error notice from sender (consumers)(ongoing), 733,000 respondents; Time limits and extent of investigation (ongoing), 1,018 respondents; Transmitter error resolution standards and recordkeeping requirements (one-time), 1,018 respondents; Transmitter error resolution standards and recordkeeping requirements (ongoing), 1,018 respondents; Acts of agents (one-time), 1,018 respondents; Acts of agents (ongoing), 1,018 respondents.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory (15 U.S.C. 1693b(a)). The Federal Reserve does not collect any information under the CFPB's Regulation E, so no issue of confidentially arises. However, in the event the Federal Reserve were to obtain this any of the recordkeeping or disclosure documentation during the course of an examination, the information may be protected from disclosure under exemptions 4, 6, or 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (6), and (8)).

    Abstract: The EFTA ensures adequate disclosure of basic terms, costs, and rights relating to electronic fund transfer (EFT) services debiting or crediting a consumer's account. The disclosures required by the EFTA are triggered by certain specified events. The disclosures inform consumers about the terms of the electronic fund transfer service, activity on the account, potential liability for unauthorized transfers, and the process for resolving errors. To ease institutions' burden and cost of complying with the disclosure requirements of Regulation E (particularly for small entities), Regulation E includes model forms and disclosure clauses.

    Regulation E applies to all financial institutions. In addition, certain provisions in Regulation E apply to entities that are not financial institutions, including those that act as service providers or automated teller machine (ATM) operators, merchants and other payees that engage in electronic check conversion (ECK) transactions, the electronic collection of returned item fees, or preauthorized transfers, issuers and sellers of gift cards and gift certificates, and remittance transfer providers.

    Current Actions: On June 10, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 32953) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfer Act). The comment period for this notice expired on August 10, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. The revisions will be implemented as proposed.

    Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Reports

    1. Report title: Notice Requirements in Connection with Regulation W (12 CFR part 223 Transactions Between Member Banks and Their Affiliates).

    Agency form number: Reg W.

    OMB control number: 7100-0304.

    Frequency: Event-generated.

    Reporters: Insured depository institutions and uninsured member banks.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 24 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Loan participation renewal notice, 2 hours; Acquisition notice, 6 hours; Internal corporate reorganization transactions notice, 6 hours; and section 23A additional exemption notice, 10 hours.

    Number of respondents: Loan participation renewal notice, 1; Acquisition notice, 1; Internal corporate reorganization transactions notice, 1; and section 23A additional exemption notice, 1.

    General description of report: This information collection is required to evidence compliance with sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c and 371c-1). Confidential and proprietary information collected for the purposes of the Loan Participation Renewal notice (12 CFR 223.15(b)(4)) may be protected under the authority of section (b)(4) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). That section of FOIA exempts commercial or financial information deemed competitively sensitive from disclosure. Respondents who desire that the information on this notice be kept confidential in accordance with section (b)(4) can request confidential treatment under the Board's rules at 12 CFR 261.15. In addition, information that is obtained as part of an examination of a financial institution is exempt from disclosure under exemption (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

    Abstract: On December 12, 2002, the Federal Reserve published a Federal Register notice 1 adopting Regulation W (Reg W) to implement sections 23A and 23B. Reg W was effective April 1, 2003. The Board issued Reg W for several reasons. First, the regulatory framework established by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 2 emphasized the importance of sections 23A and 23B as a means to protect depository institutions from losses in transactions with affiliates. Second, adoption of a comprehensive rule simplified the interpretation and application of sections 23A and 23B, ensured that the statute is consistently interpreted and applied, and minimized burden on banking organizations to the extent consistent with the statute's goals. Third, issuing a comprehensive rule allowed the public an opportunity to comment on Federal Reserve interpretations of sections 23A and 23B.

    1 (67 FR 76603).

    2 Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999).

    The information collection requirements associated with Regulation W comprise four notices: (1) the Loan Participation Renewal notice (12 CFR 223.15(b)(4)), which is a condition to an exemption for renewals of loan participations involving problem loans; (2) the Acquisition notice (12 CFR 223.31(d)(4)), which is a condition to an exemption for a depository institution's acquisition of an affiliate that becomes an operating subsidiary of the institution after the acquisition; (3) the Internal Corporate Reorganization Transactions notice (12 CFR 223.41(d)(2)), which is a condition to an exemption for internal corporate reorganization transactions; and (4) the Section 23A Additional Exemption notice (12 CFR 223.43(b)),which provides procedures for requesting additional exemptions from the requirements of section 23A. These notifications are event-generated and must be provided to the appropriate federal banking agency and, if applicable, the Federal Reserve Board within the time periods established by the law and regulation.

    Current Actions: On May 27, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 30248) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the Notice Requirements in Connection with Regulation W (12 CFR part 223 Transactions Between Member Banks and Their Affiliates). The comment period for this notice expired on July 27, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. The information collection will be extended as proposed.

    2. Report title: Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling.

    Agency form number: Reg GG.

    OMB Control Number: 7100-0317.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Reporters: Depository institutions, card system operators, and money transmitting business operators that participate in designated payment systems.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 52,808.

    Estimated average hours per response: Ongoing—8 hours; One-time—100 hours.

    Number of respondents: Depository institutions—3,039; credit unions—3,170; card system operators—7; money transmitting business operators—10; and new or de novo institutions—3.

    General description of report: Reg GG is a mandatory record retention requirement that is authorized under 31 U.S.C. 5364 (a). The required policies and procedures are not submitted to the Board so normally no confidentiality issues would be implicated. To the extent the policies and procedures were obtained by the Board through the examination process, they could be afforded confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

    Abstract: On November 18, 2008, the Board and the Department of the Treasury published a joint notice of final rulemaking in the Federal Register (73 FR 69382) adopting a rule on a prohibition on the funding of unlawful Internet gambling pursuant to the Act. Identical sets of the final joint rule with identically numbered sections were adopted by the Board and the Treasury within their respective titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (12 CFR part 233 for the Board and 31 CFR part 132 for the Treasury). The compliance date for the joint rule was June 1, 2010 (74 FR 62687). The collection of information is set out in sections 5 and 6 of the joint rule.3 Section 5 of the joint rule, as required by the Act, requires all non-exempt participants in designated payment systems to establish and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit transactions in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.4 Section 6 of the joint rule provides non-exclusive examples of policies and procedures deemed by the two agencies to be reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit transactions restricted by the Act.

    3 Section 802 of the Act requires the Agencies to prescribe joint regulations requiring each designated payment system, and all participants in such systems, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions. 31 U.S.C. 5364(a). Section 802 also requires the Agencies to include in the joint rule non-exclusive examples of reasonably designed policies and procedures. 31 U.S.C. 5364(b).

    4 12 CFR 233.5 and 233.6; and 31 CFR 132.5 and 132.6.

    Current Actions: On June 9, 2015 the Board and the Department of the Treasury published a joint notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 32559) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling information collection. The comment period for this notice expired on August 10, 2015. The Board did not receive any comments and therefore will proceed with extending the information collection as proposed.

    3. Report title: Basel II Interagency Pillar 2 Supervisory Guidance.

    Agency form number: FR 4199.

    OMB control number: 7100-0320.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Reporters: State member banks, bank holding companies (BHCs).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 5,460.

    Estimated average hours per response: 420.

    Number of respondents: 13.

    General description of report: The Board's Legal Division has determined that the FR 4199 is authorized by section 9(6) of the Federal Reserve Act and section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act. Section 9(6) of the Federal Reserve Act requires state member banks to “comply with the reserve and capital requirements of this chapter” and to make reports of condition “in such form” and “contain[ing] such information” as the Board may require (12 U.S.C. 324). Section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act authorizes the Board to “issue regulations and orders relating to the capital requirement for bank holding companies” and requires BHCs to “keep the Board informed as to [their] financial condition, systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks. . .” (12 U.S.C. 1844 (b) and (c)). Because the recordkeeping requirements are contained within guidance (and not a statute or regulation), they are voluntary. Because the FR 4199 recordkeeping requirements require that banks and BHCs retain their own records, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would only be implicated if the Federal Reserve's examiners retained a copy of the records as part of an examination or supervision of a bank or BHC. However, records obtained as a part of an examination or supervision of a bank or BHC are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption (b)(8), for examination material (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the records may also be exempt under (b)(4), which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential,” and under (b)(6) for non-public personal information regarding owners, shareholders, directors, officers or employees if the disclosure would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(6)).

    Abstract: The advanced approaches framework requires certain banks and BHCs to use an internal ratings-based approach to calculate regulatory credit risk capital requirements and advance measurement approaches to calculate regulatory operational risk capital requirements, and to meet the higher of the minimum requirements under the general risk-based capital rules and the minimum requirements under the advanced approaches framework.

    A bank is required to comply with the advanced approaches framework if it meets either of two independent threshold criteria: (1) consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more, as reported on the most recent year-end regulatory reports; or (2) consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more at the most recent year-end.

    A BHC is required to comply with the advanced approaches framework if the BHC has (1) Consolidated total assets (excluding assets held by an insurance underwriting subsidiary) of $250 billion or more, as reported on the most recent year-end regulatory reports; (2) consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more at the most recent year-end; or (3) a subsidiary depository institution (DI) that is meets the criteria to be subject to the advanced approaches rule, or elects to adopt the advanced approaches. As of September 30, 2014, 13 BHCs meet the above criteria and are therefore subject to the advanced approaches rule.5

    5 Regulation YY permits a bank holding company that is a subsidiary of a foreign banking organization to elect not to comply with the advanced approaches rule prior to formation of an IHC with the prior approval of the Board. 12 CFR 252.153(e)(2)(C).

    Also, some banks or BHCs may voluntarily decide to adopt the advanced approaches framework. Both mandatory and voluntary respondents are required to meet certain qualification requirements before they can use the advanced approaches framework for risk-based capital purposes.

    The Pillar 2 Guidance sets the expectation that respondents maintain certain documentation as described in paragraphs 37, 41, 43, and 46 of this portion of the guidance. Details of the expectations for each section are provided below.

    Setting and Assessing Capital Adequacy Goals that Relate to Risk

    Paragraph 37. In analyzing capital adequacy, a banking organization should evaluate the capacity of its capital to absorb losses. Because various definitions of capital are used within the banking industry, each banking organization should state clearly the definition of capital used in any aspect of its internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP). 6 Since components of capital are not necessarily alike and have varying capacities to absorb losses, a banking organization should be able to demonstrate the relationship between its internal capital definition and its assessment of capital adequacy. If a banking organization's definition of capital differs from the regulatory definition, the banking organization should reconcile such differences and provide an analysis to support the inclusion of any capital instruments that are not recognized under the regulatory definition. Although common equity is generally the predominant component of a banking organization's capital structure, a banking organization may be able to support the inclusion of other capital instruments in its internal definition of capital if it can demonstrate a similar capacity to absorb losses. The banking organization should document any changes in its internal definition of capital, and the reason for those changes.

    6 A bank holding company with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more is required to develop and maintain a capital plan, which must set forth a capital adequacy process. 76 FR 74631 (December 1, 2011). ICAAP would constitute an internal capital adequacy process for purposes of the final rule, and bank holding companies that have a satisfactory ICAAP generally would be considered to have a satisfactory internal capital adequacy process for purposes of the final rule.

    Ensuring Integrity of Internal Capital Adequacy Assessments

    Paragraph 41. A banking organization should maintain thorough documentation of its ICAAP to ensure transparency. At a minimum, this should include a description of the banking organization's overall capital-management process, including the committees and individuals responsible for the ICAAP; the frequency and distribution of ICAAP-related reporting; and the procedures for the periodic evaluation of the appropriateness and adequacy of the ICAAP. In addition, where applicable, ICAAP documentation should demonstrate the banking organization's sound use of quantitative methods (including model selection and limitations) and data-selection techniques, as well as appropriate maintenance, controls, and validation. A banking organization should document and explain the role of third-party and vendor products, services and information—including methodologies, model inputs, systems, data, and ratings—and the extent to which they are used within the ICAAP. A banking organization should have a process to regularly evaluate the performance of third-party and vendor products, services and information. As part of the ICAAP documentation, a banking organization should document the assumptions, methods, data, information, and judgment used in its quantitative and qualitative approaches.

    Paragraph 43. The board of directors and senior management have certain responsibilities in developing, implementing, and overseeing the ICAAP. The board should approve the ICAAP and its components. The board or its appropriately delegated agent should review the ICAAP and its components on a regular basis, and approve any revisions. That review should encompass the effectiveness of the ICAAP, the appropriateness of risk tolerance levels and capital planning, and the strength of control infrastructures. Senior management should continually ensure that the ICAAP is functioning effectively and as intended, under a formal review policy that is explicit and well documented. Additionally, a banking organization's internal audit function should play a key role in reviewing the controls and governance surrounding the ICAAP on an ongoing basis.

    Paragraph 46. As part of the ICAAP, the board or its delegated agent, as well as appropriate senior management, should periodically review the resulting assessment of overall capital adequacy. This review, which should occur at least annually, should include an analysis of how measures of internal capital adequacy compare with other capital measures (such as regulatory, accounting-based or market-determined). Upon completion of this review, the board or its delegated agent should determine that, consistent with safety and soundness, the banking organization's capital takes into account all material risks and is appropriate for its risk profile. However, in the event a capital deficiency is uncovered (that is, if capital is not consistent with the banking organization's risk profile or risk tolerance) management should consult and adhere to formal procedures to correct the capital deficiency.

    Current Actions: On May 28, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 30459) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 4199. The comment period for this notice expired on July 27, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments and therefore will proceed with extending the information collection as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 25, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21312 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Nuha Elmaghrabi, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. OMB Desk Officer, Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the revision, without extension, of the following reports:

    1. Report title: Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies, Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Holding Companies, Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Holding Companies, Financial Statements for Employee Stock Ownership Plan Holding Companies.1

    1 The family of FR Y-9 reporting forms also contains the Supplement to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9CS) which is not being revised.

    Agency form number: FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-9ES.

    OMB control number: 7100-0128.

    Frequency: Quarterly, semiannually, and annually.

    Reporters: Bank holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and securities holding companies (SHCs) (collectively, “holding companies” (HCs)).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-9C (non Advanced Approaches): 130,964 hours; FR Y-9C (Advanced Approaches): 2,500 hours; FR Y-9LP: 17,178 hours; FR Y-9SP: 47,412 hours; FR Y-9ES: 43 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-9C (non Advanced Approaches): 50.84 hours; FR Y-9C (Advanced Approaches): 52.09 hours; FR Y-9LP: 5.25 hours; FR Y-9SP: 5.40 hours; FR Y-9ES: 0.50 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-9C (non Advanced Approaches): 644; FR Y-9C (Advanced Approaches): 12; FR Y-9LP: 818; FR Y-9SP: 4,390; FR Y-9ES: 86.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory for BHCs (12 U.S.C. 12 U.S.C. 1844(c)). Additionally, section 10 of Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)) and 1850a(c)(1)(A), respectively, authorize the Federal Reserve to require that SLHCs and supervised SHCs file the FR Y-9C with the Federal Reserve. Confidential treatment is not routinely given to the financial data in this report. However, confidential treatment for the reporting information, in whole or in part, can be requested in accordance with the instructions to the form, pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: Pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and HOLA, the Federal Reserve requires HCs to provide standardized financial statements to fulfill the Federal Reserve's statutory obligation to supervise these organizations. HCs file the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP quarterly, the FR Y-9SP semiannually, and the FR Y-9ES annually.

    2. Report title: Consolidated Holding Company Report of Equity Investments in Nonfinancial Companies.

    Agency form number: FR Y-12.

    OMB control number: 7100-0300.

    Frequency: Quarterly and semiannually.

    Reporters: BHCs and SLHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-9C filers: 1,452 hours; FR Y-9SP filers: 198 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 16.50 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-9C filers: 22; FR Y-9SP filers: 6.

    General description of report: This collection of information is mandatory pursuant to Section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)) and section 10 of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)). The FR Y-12 data are not considered confidential. However, confidential treatment for the reporting information, in whole or in part, can be requested in accordance with the instructions to the form, pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR Y-12 collects information from certain domestic BHCs and SLHCs on their equity investments in nonfinancial companies. The FR Y-12 data serve as an important risk-monitoring device for institutions active in this business line by allowing supervisory staff to monitor an institution's activity between review dates. They also serve as an early warning mechanism, to identity institutions whose activities in this area are growing rapidly and therefore warrant special supervisory attention. Respondents report the FR Y-12 either quarterly or semi-annually based on reporting threshold criteria.

    3. Report title: Banking Organization System Risk Report.

    Agency form number: FR Y-15.

    OMB control number: 7100-0352.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Reporters: BHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organizations identified as global systemically important banks (GSIBs) that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 9,735 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 295 hours.

    Number of respondents: 33.

    General description of report: This collection of information is mandatory pursuant to section 5 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)). Except for those items subject to a delayed release, the individual data items collected on the FR Y-15 will be made available to the public for report dates beginning December 31, 2013. Though confidential treatment will not be routinely given to the financial data collected on the FR Y-15, respondents may request such treatment for any information that they believe is subject to an exemption from disclosure pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR Y-15 annual report collects systemic risk data from U.S. BHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organizations identified as GSIBs that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs. The profile of the institutions which are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA).

    4. Report title: Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Holding Companies and the Abbreviated Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Holding Companies.

    Agency form number: FR Y-11 and FR Y-11S.

    OMB control number: 7100-0244.

    Frequency: Quarterly and annually.

    Reporters: HCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-11 (quarterly): 15,966 hours; FR Y-11 (annual): 2,441 hours; FR Y-11S: 429 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-11: 6.80 hours; FR Y-11S: 1 hour.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-11 (quarterly): 587; FR Y-11 (annual): 359; FR Y-11S: 429.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)). Confidential treatment is not routinely given to the data in these reports. However, confidential treatment for the reporting information, in whole or in part, can be requested in accordance with the instructions to the form, pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6) and (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6) and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR Y-11 and FR Y-11S reporting forms collect financial information for individual non-functionally regulated U.S. nonbank subsidiaries of domestic HCs. HCs file the FR Y-11 on a quarterly or annual basis or the FR Y-11S annually based on size thresholds, and for the FR Y-11S, based on an additional threshold related to the percentage of consolidated assets of the top-tier organization. The FR Y-11 family of reports data are used with other HC data to assess the condition of HCs that are heavily engaged in nonbanking activities and to monitor the volume, nature, and condition of their nonbanking operations.

    5. Report title: Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations and the Abbreviated Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations.

    Agency form number: FR 2314 and FR 2314S.

    OMB control number: 7100-0073.

    Frequency: Quarterly and annually.

    Reporters: Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. state member banks (SMBs), Edge and agreement corporations, and HCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR 2314 (quarterly): 18,427 hours; FR 2314 (annual): 2,554 hours; FR 2314S: 480 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR 2314: 6.60 hours; FR 2314S: 1 hour.

    Number of respondents: FR 2314 (quarterly): 698; FR 2314 (annual): 387; FR 2314S: 480.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 324, 602, 625, and 1844(c)). Confidential treatment is not routinely given to the data in these reports. However, confidential treatment for the reporting information, in whole or in part, can be requested in accordance with the instructions to the form, pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6) and (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6) and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR 2314 and FR 2314S reporting forms collect financial information for non-functionally regulated direct or indirect foreign subsidiaries of U.S. SMBs, Edge and agreement corporations, and HCs. Parent organizations (SMBs, Edge and agreement corporations, or HCs) file the FR 2314 on a quarterly or annual basis or the FR 2314S annually based on additional size thresholds. The FR 2314 family of reports data are used to identify current and potential problems at the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies, to monitor the activities of U.S. banking organizations in specific countries, and to develop a better understanding of activities within the industry, in general, and of individual institutions, in particular.

    6. Report title: Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations, the Abbreviated Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations, and the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking Organizations.

    Agency form number: FR Y-7N, FR Y-7NS, and FR Y-7Q.

    OMB control number: 7100-0125.

    Frequency: Quarterly and annually.

    Reporters: Foreign banking organizations (FBOs).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-7N (quarterly): 5,168 hours; FR Y-7N (annual): 612 hours; FR Y-7NS: 74 hours; FR Y-7Q (quarterly): 945 hours; FR Y-7Q (annual): 50 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-7N (quarterly): 6.8 hours; FR Y-7N (annual): 6.8 hours; FR Y-7NS: 1 hour; FR Y-7Q (quarterly): 1.75 hours; FR Y-7Q (annual): 1.5 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-7N (quarterly): 190; FR Y-7N (annual): 90; FR Y-7NS: 74; FR Y-7Q (quarterly): 135; FR Y-7Q (annual): 33.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)) and sections 8(c) and 13 of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3106(c) and 3108)). Overall, the Federal Reserve does not consider these data to be confidential. However, individual respondents may request confidential treatment for any of these reports pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)). The applicability of these exemptions would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

    Abstract: The FR Y-7N and FR Y-7NS collect financial information for non-functionally regulated U.S. nonbank subsidiaries held by FBOs other than through a U.S. BHC, U.S. financial holding company (FHC), or U.S. bank. FBOs file the FR Y-7N quarterly or annually or the FR Y-7NS annually predominantly based on asset size thresholds. The FR Y-7Q collects consolidated regulatory capital information from all FBOs either quarterly or annually. The FR Y-7Q is filed quarterly by FBOs that have effectively elected to become FHCs and by FBOs that have total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, regardless of FHC status. All other FBOs file the FR Y-7Q annually.

    7. Report title: Quarterly Savings and Loan Holding Company Report.

    Agency form number: FR 2320.

    OMB control number: 7100-0345.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Reporters: SLHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 180 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 2.5 hours.

    Number of respondents: 18.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to section 312 of the DFA and section 10 of HOLA, as amended by section 369 of the DFA, (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(2)), as amended by Public Law 111-201, 369(8). Data items C572, C573, and C574 on Schedule HC may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). With regard to the remaining data items on Schedule HC, the Federal Reserve has determined that institutions may request confidential treatment for any FR 2320 data item or for all FR 2320 data items, and confidential treatment will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

    Abstract: The FR 2320 collects select parent only and consolidated balance sheet and income statement financial data and organizational structure date from SLHCs exempt from initially filing Federal Reserve regulatory reports. The FR 2320 is used by the Federal Reserve to analyze the overall financial condition of exempt SLHCs to ensure safe and sound operations.

    8. Report title: Savings Association Holding Company Report.

    Agency form number: FR H-(b)11.

    OMB control number: 7100-0334.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Reporters: SLHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: 264 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 2 hours.

    Number of respondents: 33.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(2)(A)). The FR H-(b)11 covers 6 different items. However, the Federal Reserve has determined that supplemental information in response to a “yes” answer for the Quarterly Savings and Loan Holding Company Report (FR 2320; OMB No. 7100-0345) FR 2320's questions 24, 25, and 26 may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA, which covers “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential” (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4)). Confidential treatment for the remaining portion of the reporting information can be requested in accordance with the instructions to the form, pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR H-(b)11 collects from exempt SLHCs information on filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), reports provided by the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and securities analysts, supplemental information for select questions from the FR 2320, financial statements, and other materially important events and exhibits. The Federal Reserve uses the FR H-(b)11 data to analyze the overall financial condition of exempt SLHCs to ensure safe and sound operations.

    9. Report title: Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations.

    Agency form number: FR 2886b.

    OMB control number: 7100-0086.

    Frequency: Quarterly and annually.

    Reporters: Banking Edge and agreement corporations and investment (nonbanking) Edge and agreement corporations.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Banking Edge and agreement corporations (quarterly): 424 hours; banking Edge and agreement corporations (annual): 15 hours; investment Edge and agreement corporations: (quarterly): 768 hours; investment Edge and agreement corporations: (annual): 182 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Banking Edge and agreement corporations: 15.15 hours; investment Edge and agreement corporations: 9.60 hours.

    Number of respondents: Banking Edge and agreement corporations (quarterly): 7; banking Edge and agreement corporations (annual): 1; investment Edge and agreement corporations: (quarterly): 20; investment Edge and agreement corporations: (annual): 19.

    General description of report: This information is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 602, 625). In addition, with respect to the contact information collected in the Patriot Act Contact Information section, the Board's regulation's (12 CFR part 211.5(m)) instruct Edge and agreement corporations to comply with the information sharing regulations that the Department of the Treasury issued pursuant to Section 314(a) of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 307 (31 U.S.C. 5318(h)); and implemented at 31 CFR part 1010.520(b).

    For Edge corporations engaged in banking, current Schedules RC-M (with the exception of item 3) and RC-V are held confidential pursuant to Section (b)(4) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). For investment Edge corporations, only information collected on Schedule RC-M (with the exception of item 3) are given confidential treatment pursuant to Section (b)(4) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

    In addition, the information provided in the Patriot Act Contact Information section may be withheld as confidential under FOIA to prevent unauthorized individuals from falsely posing as an institution's point-of-contact in order to gain access to the highly sensitive and confidential communications sent by email between the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or federal law enforcement officials and the Patriot Act point-of-contact. The identity and contact information of private individuals, which is collected and maintained for law enforcement purposes under the Patriot Act, appears exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption 7(C) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C)).

    Abstract: The FR 2886b collects quarterly financial data from banking Edge and agreement corporations and investment (nonbanking) Edge and agreement corporations. Except for examination reports, it provides the only financial data available for these corporations. The Federal Reserve is solely responsible for authorizing, supervising, and assigning ratings to Edge and agreement corporations. The Federal Reserve uses the data collected on the FR 2886b to identify present and potential problems and monitor and develop a better understanding of activities within the industry.

    Current Actions: On March 27, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 16386) requesting public comment for 60 days on the revision, without extension, of the financial statements for holding companies. The comment period expired on May 26, 2015. The Federal Reserve did not receive any public comments addressing the proposed revisions to these information collections. However, due to delays in enhancements to the Federal Reserve's automated systems, the Federal Reserve is extending the implementation date to March 31, 2016.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 25, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21367 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-00XX]; [Docket No. 2015-0001; Sequence No. 6] Submission to OMB for Review; OMB Control No. 3090-00XX; Wireless Telecommunications Company Application AGENCY:

    Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding a new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), GSA will be submitting to OMB for review and approval a new information collection request concerning the Wireless Telecommunications Company Application. GSA will also be requesting from OMB approval to characterize this form as a common form, meaning that GSA will only request approval for its own use of the form, rather than aggregating the burden estimate across all Federal agencies that may use this form. A previous notice relating to the Wireless Telecommunications Company Application was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015, at 80 FR 13004. One respondent submitted 20 comments on this collection.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-00XX regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for Information Collection 3090-00XX. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-00xx; Wireless Telecommunications Company Application.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any) and “Information Collection 3090-00XX; Wireless Telecommunications Company Application” on your attached document. Mail: U.S. General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-00XX.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-00XX; Wireless Telecommunications Company Application, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Mary Ann Hillier, National Outlease Program Manager, PBS, GSA, at telephone 202-208-6139, or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The purpose of this application is to streamline the business information collection process to accelerate the approval process between the Federal Government and a commercial wireless telecommunications company wishing to install a wireless antenna on a Federal asset for the expansion of the company's wireless network. Federal executive agencies with landholding authority will use this form.

    B. Discussion and Analysis

    One respondent submitted multiple comments on the request to approve the new information collection. The analysis of the public comments is summarized as follows:

    Comment: The proposed application form requests site-specific, detailed information that may not be available to the applicant at the time of the application.

    Response: The submission of site-specific, detailed, complete, and accurate drawings and specifications is not required at the time the application is submitted. However, if the application is approved, detailed drawings and specifications are required and critical to determine if an installation would be suitable, particularly for a rooftop antenna. The Government reserves the right to reject a request if the applicant does not provide detailed drawings and specifications of the proposed equipment, structures and installation prior to the completion of contract negotiations.

    Comment: GSA should require each agency to provide a contact person for handling applications related to each property.

    Response: The application requests the name of individuals who will serve as the respective points of contact for the applicant and the Government. Since the application is project/building specific (i.e., not a blanket application for multiple installations at multiple locations,) the desired results will be attained with use of the application. GSA already maintains an online map of all federally owned properties under GSA's jurisdiction, custody, and control with point-of-contact information specific to using space for private sector antenna installations and will encourage the other executive landholding agencies to do the same.

    Comment: Online tracking mechanisms should be utilized.

    Response: GSA agrees online tracking mechanisms are useful tools. GSA, in consultation with other executive landholding agencies, will work to develop an online tracking system.

    Comment: RFI certification report requirement should be clarified.

    Response: The RFI certification is listed as a potential requirement because it is not required for all projects; for instance, the RFI certification is of no benefit for land-sited towers, as these types of towers are secured against unauthorized access. The RFI certification is a long standing requirement for rooftop antenna installations so that the many individuals requiring access to building rooftops may do so safely and so that the new antenna microwave frequencies will not cause interference with existing rooftop antennas. This certification requirement is a business practice that GSA encourages other executive landholding agencies to adopt for their rooftop antenna installations. It is not the intention of this application to require a RFI certification for those secured Government campuses where access to the antenna installation is restricted.

    Comment: “Federal, state and local statutory recording requirements” should be clarified or deleted.

    Response: GSA currently requires vendors to comply with all Federal, state and local statutory requirements and will encourage other executive landholding agencies to adopt this practice. No change will be made in response to this comment.

    Comment: Requirements for a security deposit should be eliminated at the application stage.

    Response: The security deposit is not required until after the application is approved. GSA requires a security deposit for antenna installations to protect against damage and abandonment. While the majority of large carriers are responsible tenants, carrier bankruptcy is a possibility. The Government reserves the right to avoid the necessity of using appropriated funds to address damage or equipment abandonment.

    Comment: Requirements for a performance bond should be eliminated.

    Response: Requiring a performance bond is standard business practice. The purpose of the application is to pre-qualify the carrier. The applicant is not expected to furnish the performance bond at the time it submits the application. This provision is intended to notify applicants that a performance bond may be required prior to commencing installation of the equipment.

    Comment: Certain information requested is too broad, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) License does not apply to all, and clarification needed for Check List items 1 and 7.

    Response: The information being collected is standard business information required to establish the financial viability of a business to determine whether to enter into negotiations. The information would only be collected by the Contracting Officer (CO) or the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The CO or the COR may not handle day-to-day site issues, but are reliable agency points of contact for the carrier throughout the life of the contract.

    If the application is being used for a system that does not require an FCC license, the carrier can notify the agency and the agency can, in turn, confirm with the FCC that a license is not required for the proposed installation.

    With regard to the Potential Document Check List, item No. 1 refers to the business license that most, if not all, states require for a commercial business to be conducted in their state. Item No. 7 refers to the contractual requirement that lessees must comply with all applicable Federal, state, local government, and municipal laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, codes, decrees, orders and other such requirements, including, without limitation, those laws regarding wages and hours, health, safety, building codes, emergencies, and security.

    Comment: GSA should clarify the title of the proposed common form application.

    Response: The posting to the Federal Register for the second request for comments will use the correct title for the application.

    Comment: The application form should be used by all federal agencies.

    Response: The current draft application for wireless antenna installations is being processed as a Common Form for use by all federal agencies. Once the Federal Register posting process is complete, the application will be submitted to OMB for approval. An application for right-of-way and easements, the SF299 “Application for Transportations and Utility Systems on Federal Land,” is already in existence, and its use is required for all federal agencies. The SF-299 was developed by the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Transportation.

    Comment: Moratoria on accepting applications are prohibited.

    Response: This comment speaks not to the application, but rather to shared policy and procedures to be developed by the executive landholding agencies acting in common in support of the application process. This comment will be taken into consideration; however, no change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    Comment: Timely responses to applications are mandatory.

    Response: It is agreed that timely responses are important; however, the comment speaks not to the application, but rather to shared policy and procedures to be developed by the executive landholding agencies acting in common in support of the application process. No change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    Comment: Applications should be “deemed approved” upon passage of time.

    Response: While timely approval is a shared goal, federal agencies must perform the due diligence required to confirm that implementation of a proposal is in the best interests of the Government and the taxpayer.

    Comment: Applications should be presumed consistent with each agency's mission and property use.

    Response: Given the different missions and property uses existent among the executive landholding agencies, it is not clear how making such a presumption is in the best interest of the Government and the taxpayer.

    Comment: The application form should not implicate a Joint Spectrum Center review for commercial providers of unlicensed wireless services.

    Response: The decision to use unlicensed wireless services is an internal policy decision to be developed in concert among the executive landholding agencies in support of the application process. No change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    Comment: Applicants may opt in to the rates, terms, and conditions of other providers located at the federal property.

    Response: This comment speaks not to the application, but rather to shared policy and procedures to be developed by the executive landholding agencies acting in common in support of the application process. No change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    Comment: The “Notice of Competitive Procedures” should be posted to FedBizOps.gov upon receipt of an application.

    Response: This comment speaks not to the application, but rather to shared policy and procedures to be developed by the executive landholding agencies acting in common in support of the application process. No change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    Comment: Application forms should be utilized to initiate amendments to existing installations and the applicable lease, easement, or right-of-way.

    Response: This comment speaks not to the application, but rather to shared policy and procedures to be developed by the executive landholding agencies acting in common in support of the application process. No change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    Comment: Executive agencies may utilize easements or leases with 25-year terms for wireless siting requests.

    Response: This comment speaks not to the application, but rather to shared policy and procedures to be developed by the executive landholding agencies acting in common in support of the application process. No change will be made to the application in response to this comment.

    C. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 20.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Response Hours: 20.

    Hours per Response: 1.

    Total Burden Hours: 20.

    D. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Second Floor, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-00XX, Wireless Telecommunications Company Application, in all correspondence.

    Dated: August 21, 2015. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21249 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60 Day-15-0960: Docket No. CDC-2015-0073] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on Epidemiologic Study of Health Effects Associated With Low Pressure Events in Drinking Water Distribution Systems.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0073 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Epidemiologic Study of Health Effects Associated With Low Pressure Events in Drinking Water Distribution Systems (OMB Control Number 0920-0960, Expiration 3/31/2016)—Extension—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In the United States (U.S.), drinking water distribution systems are designed to deliver safe, pressurized drinking water to our homes, hospitals, schools and businesses. However, the water distribution infrastructure is 50-100 years old in much of the U.S. and an estimated 240,000 water main breaks occur each year. Failures in the distribution system such as water main breaks, cross-connections, back-flow, and pressure fluctuations can result in potential intrusion of microbes and other contaminants that can cause health effects, including acute gastrointestinal and respiratory illness.

    Approximately 200 million cases of acute gastrointestinal illness occur in the U.S. each year, but we lack reliable data to assess how many of these cases are associated with drinking water. Further, data are even more limited on the human health risks associated with exposure to drinking water during and after the occurrence of low pressure events (such as water main breaks) in drinking water distribution systems. A study conducted in Norway from 2003-2004 found that people exposed to low pressure events in the water distribution system had a higher risk for gastrointestinal illness. A similar study is needed in the United States.

    The purpose of this data collection is to conduct an epidemiologic study in the U.S. to assess whether individuals exposed to low pressure events in the water distribution system are at an increased risk for acute gastrointestinal or respiratory illness. This study would be, to our knowledge, the first U.S. study to systematically examine the association between low pressure events and acute gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses. Study findings will inform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CDC, and other drinking water stakeholders of the potential health risks associated with low pressure events in drinking water distribution systems and whether additional measures (e.g., new standards, additional research, or policy development) are needed to reduce the risk for health effects associated with low pressure events in the drinking water distribution system.

    We will conduct a cohort study among households that receive water from six water utilities across the U.S. The water systems will be geographically diverse and will include both chlorinated and chloraminated systems. These water utilities will provide information about low pressure events that occur during the study period using a standardized form (approximately 11 events per utility). Utilities will provide address listings of households in areas exposed to the low pressure event and comparable households in an unexposed area to CDC staff, who will randomly select participants and send them an introductory letter and questionnaire. Consenting household respondents will be asked about symptoms and duration of any recent gastrointestinal or respiratory illness, tap water consumption, and other exposures including international travel, daycare attendance or employment, animal contacts, and recreational water exposures. Study participants may choose between two methods of survey response: A mail-in paper survey and a web-based survey.

    Participation in this study will be voluntary. No financial compensation will be provided to study participants. The study duration is anticipated to last 30 months. An estimated 6,750 individuals will be contacted and we anticipate 4,050 utility customers (18 years of age or older) will consent to participate in this study. The total estimated annualized hours associated with this study is expected to be 548.

    There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Households Paper-based questionnaire 1,215 1 12/60 243 Households Web-based questionnaire 810 1 12/60 162 Utility employees Household listing 6 5 3 90 Utility employees Water sample collection (grab samples) 6 3 130/60 39 Utility employees Water sample collection (ultrafiltration samples) 6 2 30/60 6 Utility employees Low pressure event form 6 5 15/60 8 Total 548
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21346 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-0307; Docket No. CDC-2015-0072] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed extension of the information collection entitled The Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP), which is the only source in the United States of national, regional, and site-specific gonococcal antibiotic resistance information that provides information to support informed and scientifically-based treatment recommendations.

    To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Leroy A. Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to [email protected]

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0072 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    The Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP), (OMB No.0920-0307 exp. 08/31/2016)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The objectives of GISP are: (1) To monitor trends in antibiotic resistance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains in the United States and (2) to characterize resistant specimens. Surveillance of N. gonorrhoeae antibiotic resistance is important because: (1) Nearly all gonococcal infections are treated empirically (meaning that healthcare providers have to decide how to treat their patients without having resistance testing results for individual patients upon which to base clinical decision-making) and susceptibility/resistance testing data are not routinely available in clinical practice; (2) N. gonorrhoeae has consistently demonstrated the ability to develop resistance to the antibiotics used for treatment; (3) effective treatment of gonorrhea is a critical component of gonorrhea control and prevention, and (4) untreated or inadequately treated gonorrhea can cause serious reproductive health complications.

    GISP is the only source in the United States of national, regional, and site-specific gonococcal antibiotic resistance information. GISP provides information to support informed and scientifically-based treatment recommendations.

    GISP was established in 1986 as a voluntary surveillance project and now involves 5 regional laboratories and 30 publicly funded sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics around the country. The STD clinics submit up to 25 gonococcal specimens (or isolates) per month to the regional laboratories, which measure the ability of the specimens to resist the effects of multiple antibiotics. Limited demographic and clinical information corresponding to the isolates (and that do not allow identification of the patient) are submitted directly by the clinics to CDC.

    During 1986-2015, GISP has demonstrated the ability to effectively achieve its objectives. The emergence of resistance in the United States to penicillin, tetracyclines, and fluoroquinolones among N. gonorrhoeae isolates was identified through GISP. Increased prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant N. gonorrhoeae (QRNG), as documented by GISP data, prompted CDC to update treatment recommendations for gonorrhea in CDC's Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2006 and to release an MMWR article stating that CDC no longer recommended fluoroquinolones for treatment of gonococcal infections. Information from GISP thus allowed public health officials to change treatment recommendations before resistance became widespread, ensuring that patients were able to be successfully treated. Recently, GISP isolates demonstrated increasing minimum inhibitory concentrations of cefixime, which can be an early warning of impending resistance. This worrisome trend prompted CDC to again update treatment recommendations and no longer recommend the use of cefixime as first-line treatment for gonococcal infections.

    Under the GISP protocol, each of the 30 clinics submit an average of 20 isolates per clinic per month (i.e. 240 times per year) recorded on Form 1: Demographic/Clinical Data. The estimated time for clinical personnel to abstract data for Form 1: Demographic/Clinical Data is 11 minutes per response.

    Each of the five Regional laboratories receives and processes an approximately 20 isolates from each referring clinic per month (i.e. 121 isolates per regional laboratory per month [based on 2011 specimen volume]) using Form 2: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. For Form 2: Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, the annual frequency of responses per respondent is 1,452 (121 isolates × 12 months). Based on previous laboratory experience, the estimated burden of completing Form 2 for each participating laboratory is 1 hour per response, which includes the time required for laboratory processing of the patient's isolate, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. For Form 3: Control Strain Susceptibility Testing, a “response” is defined as the processing and recording of Regional laboratory data for a set of seven control strains. It takes approximately 12 minutes to process and record the Regional laboratory data on Form 3 for one set of seven control strains, of which there are 4 sets. The number of responses per respondent is 48 (4 sets × 12 months).

    The total estimated annual burden hours are 8,628. Respondents receive federal funds to participate in this project. There are no additional costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual burden
  • (in hours)
  • Clinic Demographic Clinical Data Form 1 30 240 11/60 1,320 Laboratory Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Form 2 5 1,452 1 7,260 Control Strain Susceptibility Testing Form 3 5 48 12/60 48 Total 8,628
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21345 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15BCU; Docket No. CDC-2015-0074] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Survey. The purpose of the NAMCS CLAS survey is to describe the awareness, training, adoption, and implementation of the Enhanced Standards for CLAS in Health and Health Care among office-based physicians.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0074 by any of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Survey—New—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    As the population of the United States becomes increasingly diverse, it is important that health care providers deliver culturally and linguistically competent services. Culturally and linguistically appropriate services (CLAS) are respectful of and responsive to individual cultural health beliefs and practices, preferred languages, health literacy levels, and communication needs. The National CLAS Standards in Health and Health Care were established in 2000 by the Office of Minority Health (OMH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to advance health equity, improve quality, and eliminate health care disparities. In 2013, OMH published the Enhanced Standards for CLAS in Health and Health Care to revise the National CLAS Standards in order to reflect advancements made since 2000, expand their scope and improve their clarity to ensure better understanding and implementation. Although there has been increased awareness and efforts to train culturally and linguistically competent health care providers, there has not been a systematic evaluation of the level of adoption or implementation of the National CLAS Standards among physicians. Due to the limited understanding of how the Standards are adopted and implemented, it is difficult to know what goals have been achieved and which need more work.

    OMH came to NCHS' Division of Health Care Statistics with this project because of our expertise collecting data from physicians in the NAMCS. The NAMCS CLAS project meets two of the Division's missions: Conduct multidisciplinary research directed towards development of new scientific knowledge on the provision, use, quality, and appropriateness of ambulatory care; and develop and sustain collaborative partnerships internally within DHHS and externally with public, private, domestic and international entities on health care statistics programs. The purpose of the NAMCS CLAS survey is to describe the awareness, training, adoption, and implementation of the Enhanced Standards for CLAS in Health and Health Care among office-based physicians. The information will be collected directly from physician respondents through an online survey, paper form or telephone administration. Information that will be collected includes demographic information, specialty, number of years the physician has provided direct patient care, training related to cultural competency and the National CLAS Standards, provision of CLAS to patients, organizational characteristics that helped or prevented provision of CLAS, and awareness of the National CLAS Standards.

    The target universe of the CLAS survey includes non-federally employed physicians who were classified by the American Medical Association or the American Osteopathic Association as providing “office-based, patient care.” The target universe excludes physicians in the specialties of anesthesiology, radiology, and pathology. The survey sample of 2,400 physicians will be used as the basis to provide regional and national estimates. Participation in the CLAS survey is voluntary. There will be no financial incentive to participate.

    The CLAS survey will be a self-administered online questionnaire, with paper form and telephone administration as follow-up alternatives for non-respondents. A three-year approval will be requested.

    There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Office-based physicians NAMCS CLAS Survey 800 1 30/60 400 Total 400
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21343 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15BEB; Docket No. CDC-2015-0071] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collect project entitled Balance After Baby Intervention: Phase 2 (BABI2.) A three-year clearance is requested to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a Web site-based lifestyle program with a racially diverse population of postpartum women who had recent Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0071 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Balance After Baby Intervention: Phase 2 (BABI2)—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The CDC Division of Reproductive Health (DRH) is focused on understanding and preventing complications due to pregnancy and the development of chronic diseases in reproductive age women. Similarly, the CDC established the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP), administered through the Division of Diabetes Translation (DDT), to make strategies for preventing type 2 diabetes broadly available to individuals at high risk of developing diabetes. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common pregnancy complications in the US, affecting approximately 3-13% of pregnancies, or approximately 200,000 cases annually. As defined by the American Diabetes Association (2003), GDM is glucose intolerance that first presents during pregnancy after the first trimester. Women with a history of GDM have a substantially increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) within 5 to 16 years after their index pregnancy. It has also been shown that many women with a history of GDM gain weight after pregnancy, increasing their risk for obesity, which itself is a strong risk factor for repeat GDM and T2DM. Because of this, as US obesity prevalence continues to increase, there is a concurrent rise in the incidence and prevalence of GDM and T2DM, resulting in a large disease burden on individuals, families, and society. To assist in reducing this national disease burden, it is critical to develop and implement successful interventions that reduce the annual number of newly diagnosed T2DM cases, especially in increased risk populations, such as women with a history of GDM. As part of this Healthy People 2020 objective, the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) demonstrated that an intensive lifestyle intervention (16 face-to-face sessions over a 24-week period) promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and weight reduction significantly decreased T2DM incidence by 58% in high risk patients. However, the DPP included predominantly older individuals whose ability to attend group meetings and adopt healthy lifestyle changes is different than younger postpartum women. For this reason, successful adaptations of the DPP that address barriers in postpartum women with recent GDM, such as limited time and resources, fatigue, and childcare demands, must be identified and tested.

    This BABI2 data collection request aims to address these barriers through the conduct of a randomized, controlled intervention trial of a Web site-based lifestyle program, Balance after Baby (BAB) that is adapted from the DPP and tailored specifically for postpartum women with recent GDM.

    The project aims to screen 293 (98 annualized over 3 years) women with a recent GDM pregnancy for enrollment into the study, followed by assessments at the following five post-partum time points: 6-weeks, 6-months, 12-months, 18-months, and 24-months. Of the estimated 190 (63 annualized) women who will meet eligibility requirements and attend the first study visit, approximately half will be assigned to the control group and will receive standard postpartum follow-up, while those assigned to the intervention group will have access to the BAB informational Web site and a lifestyle coach. For all participants, the BABI2 study visits will involve the completion of visit-specific questionnaires, laboratory testing, and the collection of physical measurements such as height and weight. Collected data will be used by CDC and BABI2 investigators to assess the impact and effectiveness of the BABI2 intervention as a potential public health weight loss tool for women at increased T2DM risk.

    For the calculation of the estimated burden hours per study visit detailed in the table below, a constant 5% rate of exclusion and attrition was applied between visits. The burden table provides a participant estimate, which will be evenly distributed across control and intervention groups for each information collection step, annualized over a 3-year collection period. Therefore, of the 190 women (63 annualized) who attend the 6-week visit, the estimated number of participants returning for the 6-month visit is reduced to 180 (60 annualized), followed by 172 (57 annualized), 162 (54 annualized), and 154 (51 annualized) for the 12-, 18-, and 24-month visits respectively. The average burden per questionnaire ranges from 8 minutes for the BABI2 Screener Questionnaire up to 36 minutes for the BABI2 6-month Questionnaire.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Women with a recent history GDM BABI2 Screener Questionnaire 98 1 8/60 13 Women with a recent history GDM BABI2 6-Week Questionnaire 63 1 35/60 37 Women with a recent history GDM BABI2 6-Month Questionnaire 60 1 36/60 36 Women with a recent history GDM BABI2 12-Month Questionnaire 57 1 32/60 31 Women with a recent history GDM BABI2 18-Month Questionnaire 54 1 32/60 29 Women with a recent history GDM BABI2 24-Month Questionnaire 51 1 33/60 28 Total 174
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21344 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1643-N] Medicare Program; Solicitation of Nominations to the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice solicits nominations for up to seven new members to the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP, the Panel). There will be vacancies on the Panel for four-year terms that begin during Calendar Year 2016.

    The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification groups and their associated weights, and supervision of hospital outpatient therapeutic services.

    The Secretary re-chartered the Panel in 2014 for a 2-year period effective through November 6, 2016.

    DATES:

    Submission of Nominations: We will consider nominations if they are received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (E.S.T) October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit nominations electronically to the following email address: [email protected]

    Web site: For additional information on the Panel and updates to the Panel's activities, we refer readers to our Web site at the following address: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Persons wishing to nominate individuals to serve on the Panel or to obtain further information may contact Carol Schwartz at the following email address: [email protected] or call (410) 786-3985.

    News Media: Representatives should contact the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act), and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel regarding the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and relative payment weights that are components of the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS), and the appropriate supervision level for hospital therapeutic outpatient services. The Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP, the Panel) is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels. The Panel may consider data collected or developed by entities and organizations (other than the Department of Health and Human Services) as part of their deliberations.

    The Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the OPPS for the following Calendar Year (CY).

    The Panel shall consist of a chair and up to 15 members who are full-time employees of hospitals, hospital systems, or other Medicare providers that are subject to the OPPS. For supervision deliberations, the Panel shall also include members that represent the interests of Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), who advise the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) only regarding the level of supervision for hospital outpatient therapeutic services. (For purposes of the Panel, consultants or independent contractors are not considered to be full-time employees in these organizations.)

    The current Panel members are as follows:

    (Note: The asterisk [*] indicates the Panel members whose terms end during CY 2016, along with the month that the term ends.)

    • E.L. Hambrick, M.D., J.D., Chair, a CMS Medical Officer.

    • Karen Borman, M.D., F.A.C.S.* (July 2016)

    • Dawn L. Francis, M.D., M.H.S.

    • Ruth Lande

    • Jim Nelson, M.B.A., C.P.A., F.H.F.M.A.* (January 2016)

    • Leah Osbahr, M.A., M.P.H.* (January 2016)

    • Jacqueline Phillips* (February 2016)

    • Johnathan Pregler, M.D.

    • Traci Rabine* (January 2016)

    • Michael Rabovsky, M.D.

    • Wendy Resnick, F.H.F.M.A.

    • Michael K. Schroyer, R.N.

    • Marianna V. Spanaki-Varelas M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A.* (February 2016)

    • Norman Thomson, III, M.D.

    • Gale Walker* (January 2016)

    • Kris Zimmer

    Panel members serve on a voluntary basis, without compensation, according to an advance written agreement; however, for the meetings, CMS reimburses travel, meals, lodging, and related expenses in accordance with standard Government travel regulations. CMS has a special interest in ensuring, while taking into account the nominee pool, that the Panel is diverse in all respects of the following: Geography; rural or urban practice; race, ethnicity, sex, and disability; medical or technical specialty; and type of hospital, hospital health system, or other Medicare provider subject to the OPPS.

    Based upon either self-nominations or nominations submitted by providers or interested organizations, the Secretary, or her designee, appoints new members to the Panel from among those candidates determined to have the required expertise. New appointments are made in a manner that ensures a balanced membership under the FACA guidelines. For 2016, we anticipate doing one solicitation for nominees. Our appointment schedule will assure that we have the full complement of members for each Panel meeting. Current members' terms expire at different times throughout the year; therefore, we will add new members throughout the year as terms expire.

    II. Criteria for Nominees

    The Panel must be fairly balanced in its membership in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed. Each panel member must be employed full-time by a hospital, hospital system, or other Medicare provider subject to payment under the OPPS (except for the CAH members, since CAHs are not paid under the OPPS). All members must have technical expertise to enable them to participate fully in the Panel's work. Such expertise encompasses hospital payment systems; hospital medical care delivery systems; provider billing systems; APC groups; Current Procedural Terminology codes; and alpha-numeric Health Care Common Procedure Coding System codes; and the use of, and payment for, drugs, medical devices, and other services in the outpatient setting, as well as other forms of relevant expertise. For supervision deliberations, the Panel shall have members that represent the interests of CAHs, who advise CMS only regarding the level of supervision for hospital outpatient therapeutic services.

    It is not necessary for a nominee to possess expertise in all of the areas listed, but each must have a minimum of 5 years experience and currently have full-time employment in his or her area of expertise. Generally, members of the Panel serve overlapping terms up to 4 years, based on the needs of the Panel and contingent upon the rechartering of the Panel. A member may serve after the expiration of his or her term until a successor has been sworn in.

    Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified individuals. Self-nominations will also be accepted. Each nomination must include the following:

    • Letter of Nomination stating the reasons why the nominee should be considered.

    • Curriculum vitae or resume of the nominee that includes an email address where the nominee can be contacted.

    • Written and signed statement from the nominee that the nominee is willing to serve on the Panel under the conditions described in this notice and further specified in the Charter.

    • The hospital or hospital system name and address, or CAH name and address, as well as all Medicare hospital and or Medicare CAH billing numbers of the facility where the nominee is employee.

    III. Copies of the Charter

    To obtain a copy of the Panel's Charter, we refer readers to our Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.html.

    IV. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21419 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Purchase, Construction and Major Renovation of Head Start Facilities.

    OMB No.: 0970-0193.

    Description: The Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services, is proposing to renew authority to collect information on funding for the purchase, construction or renovation of facilities. All information is collected electronically through the Head Start Enterprise System (HSES). The information required is in conformance with Section 644 (f) and (g) of the Act. Federal funding officials use the information to determine that the proposed purchase has resulted in savings when compared to the costs that would be incurred to acquire the use of an alternative facility, or that the lack of alternative facilities will prevent, or would have prevented, the operation of the program. The rule further describes the assurances which are necessary to protect the Federal interest in real property and the conditions under which federal interest may be subordinated and protected when grantees make use of debt instruments when purchasing facilities. The information is used by funding officials to determine if grantee's arrangements adequately conform to other applicable statutes which apply to the expenditure of public funds for the purchase of real property.

    Respondents: Head Start and Early Head Start program grant recipients.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Administrative Requirements 225 1 41 9225

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9225.

    Cost per respondent is $40 estimated at 2 hours x $20.00 per hour.

    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, Fax: 202-395-7285, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21304 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) Program Performance Report AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity to comment on the proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 30 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice collects comments on the information collection requirements relating to an existing collection: Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT) Program Performance Report (0985-0046).

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by email to by fax 202-395-5806 or by email to [email protected], Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clare Barnett, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program Support, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Room 4204, Washington, DC 20201, 202-357-3426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal statute requires the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System in each State to annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that includes documentation of the progress made. AIDD reviews the program performance report (PPR) for compliance and for program outcomes. AIDD will aggregate the information in the PPRs into a national profile of programmatic activities and accomplishments, and permit AIDD to track accomplishments against goals and formulate areas of technical assistance and compliance with Federal requirements.

    ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    PADD SGP 57 1 16 912

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 912.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator & Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21409 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1543] Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or the Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products.” The draft guidance describes our current thinking on the need for biological products licensed under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to bear a nonproprietary name that includes an FDA-designated suffix. Our current thinking is that shared nonproprietary names are not appropriate for all biological products. There is a need to clearly identify biological products to improve pharmacovigilance, and, for the purposes of safe use, to clearly differentiate among biological products that have not been determined to be interchangeable. Accordingly, for biological products, we intend to designate a nonproprietary name that includes a suffix composed of four lowercase letters. Each suffix will be incorporated in the nonproprietary name of the product. This naming convention is applicable to biological products previously licensed and newly licensed under the PHS Act. The nonproprietary name designated for originator biological products, related biological products, and biosimilars will include a unique suffix. However, FDA is considering whether the nonproprietary name for an interchangeable product should include a unique suffix, or should share the same suffix as its reference product. FDA invites comment on the draft guidance and solicits comments on ways to improve active pharmacovigilance systems for the purposes of monitoring the safety of biological products.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance, including responses to the questions in this notice, by October 27, 2015. Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6340, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1042; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products.” The draft guidance describes our current thinking on the need for biological products licensed under section 351(a) or 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a) or 262(k)), as added by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act),1 to bear a nonproprietary name that includes an FDA-designated suffix. Our current thinking is that shared nonproprietary names are not appropriate for all biological products. There is a need to clearly identify biological products for the purpose of pharmacovigilance, and, for the purposes of safe use, to clearly differentiate among biological products that have not been determined to be interchangeable. Accordingly, for biological products, we intend to designate a nonproprietary name that includes a suffix composed of four lowercase letters. Each suffix will be incorporated in the nonproprietary name of the product. This naming convention is applicable to biological products previously licensed and newly licensed under sections 351(a) and 351(k) of the PHS Act. The nonproprietary name designated for originator biological products, related biological products, and biosimilar products will include a unique suffix. However, as discussed in section IV.C. of the guidance, FDA is seeking comment on whether the nonproprietary name for an interchangeable product should include a unique suffix, or should share the same suffix as its reference product.

    1 The BPCI Act was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) on March 23, 2010.

    By differentiating biological products from one another that have not been determined by the FDA to be interchangeable, this naming convention is intended to help minimize inadvertent substitution. Inadvertent substitution may lead to unintended alternating or switching of biological products that have not been determined by FDA to be interchangeable. A naming convention that differentiates among biological products also could help facilitate pharmacovigilance for all biological products. By applying this naming convention to all biological products, this approach is intended to: (1) Encourage routine use of designated suffixes in ordering, prescribing, dispensing, and recordkeeping practices and (2) avoid inaccurate perceptions of the safety and effectiveness of biological products based on their licensure pathways.

    The draft guidance provides information to industry, the health care community, other regulatory agencies, and the public on our rationale for this naming convention. The draft guidance also is intended to assist applicants and application holders in proposing the suffix to be used as part of a biological product's nonproprietary name. The nonproprietary name designated by FDA in the license for a biological product licensed under the PHS Act is its “proper name,” and the term “proper name” is used throughout the draft guidance (see section 351(a)(1)(B)(i) of the PHS Act and 21 CFR 600.3(k)).

    We invite comment on the draft guidance, including potential approaches for designating and incorporating suffixes retrospectively and prospectively into the nonproprietary names of all biological products. We also solicit comments on ways to improve active pharmacovigilance systems for the purposes of monitoring the safety of biological products. In providing comments, please consider the following:

    1. What are the potential benefits and challenges of designating a suffix in the proper name of a biological product that is:

    ○ Devoid of meaning versus meaningful (e.g., a suffix derived from the name of the license holder)

    ○ unique to each biological product versus unique to each license holder and shared by each biological product manufactured by that license holder.

    In your comments, please address how each option would impact the following: Safe use of biological products; pharmacovigilance; and market acceptance and uptake for certain products.

    2. What would be the potential benefits and challenges for an interchangeable product 2 to share the same suffix as designated in the proper name of the reference product? Your response should consider that FDA's publicly available electronic resource, the Purple Book, 3 will identify biological products determined by FDA to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with a reference product. If an interchangeable product does share the same suffix as the reference product, how would this impact your responses to question 1, including pharmacovigilance?

    2Interchangeable product means a biological product that has been shown to meet the standards described in section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act and may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product (see section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act).

    3 The Purple Book: Lists of Licensed Biological Products With Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluation is available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/approvalapplications/therapeuticbiologicapplications/biosimilars/ucm411418.htm.

    3. Would there be additional benefits or challenges if the suffix designated in the proper name of a biosimilar product that is subsequently determined to be interchangeable were changed to that of the reference product upon a determination of interchangeability? Would there be benefits or challenges to allowing the manufacturer of the biosimilar product that is subsequently determined to be interchangeable to have the option of retaining its original suffix or adopting the same suffix as the reference product?

    4. How could FDA and/or other Federal partners improve active pharmacovigilance systems for purposes of monitoring the safety of biological products? For example, because NDC numbers are not routinely recorded in billing and patient records in many clinical settings in which biological products are dispensed and administered, are there other identifiers besides distinguishable nonproprietary names that are routinely accessible by active pharmacovigilance systems and could enable as good as or better pharmacovigilance? How can FDA and/or other Federal partners help ensure that a distinguishable identifier for each biological product would be captured at the point of dispensing or administration to the patient and be routinely accessible in systems used for pharmacovigilance?

    5. What process and reasonable timeframe should FDA use to designate a suffix to include in the nonproprietary name of a previously licensed biological product?

    6. What criteria should FDA use to prioritize retrospective application of this naming convention to previously licensed biological products?

    7. What are the expected time frames for sponsors of previously licensed biological products to distribute products that conform to this naming convention after approval of a labeling supplement?

    8. What strategies could FDA use to enhance stakeholders' understanding of and education about this naming convention?

    9. FDA notes that this naming convention (i.e., use of a suffix) has some similarities to the World Health Organization (WHO) proposal, “Biological Qualifier—An INN Proposal.” At the time of publication of this draft guidance, WHO was still evaluating the comments received on its proposal. If WHO adopts a Biological Qualifier proposal, how should the biological qualifiers generated by WHO be considered in the determination of FDA-designated proper names for the biological products within the scope of this guidance?

    We are continuing to consider the transition provisions of section 7002(e)(2) through (e)(4) of the BPCI Act that apply to biological products submitted or approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), including how those provisions may impact the nonproprietary naming of products to which those provisions apply. We invite comment from all stakeholders on the application of this naming convention to biological products approved under the FD&C Act.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on nonproprietary naming of biological products, including biosimilar products and interchangeable products. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    The draft guidance proposes a new collection of information by requesting information from applicants and application holders to propose a suffix composed of four lowercase letters to be included in the “proper name.” The “proper name” is designated by FDA at the time of licensure for biological products submitted under section 351(a) of the PHS Act and for biosimilar products and interchangeable products submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The applicant should also include information that the proposed suffix meets the factors described in the draft guidance. For the prospective application of this naming convention, our evaluation will generally occur during the investigational new drug application phase and will also be incorporated into the review of the marketing application.

    The draft guidance also refers to a previously approved collection of information found in FDA regulations that is expected to change as a result of the draft guidance and the retrospective application of the naming convention. The collection of information is related to the following: The submission of a biologics license application (BLA) and changes to an approved application, which is covered under part 601 (21 CFR part 601) and approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. As a result of the draft guidance, the estimated number of additional responses for the annual burden for changes to an approved application under § 601.12 would be increased by approximately 25 responses.

    The draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations that are not expected to change as a result of the draft guidance. The collection of information is related to the following: The submission of a BLA under section 351(k) of the PHS Act (biosimilar products and interchangeable products), which is approved under OMB control number 0910-0719.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information for the prospective application of the naming convention as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Information for the Proposed Proper Name for Biological Products Submitted Under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act 20 2 40 6 240 Information for the Proposed Proper Name for Biosimilar Products and Interchangeable Products Submitted Under Section 351(k) of the PHS Act 3 2 6 6 36 Total 276 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    As indicated in table 1, we estimate that we will receive a total of approximately 40 requests annually for the proposed “proper name” for biological products submitted under section 351(a) of the PHS Act and 6 requests annually for the proposed “proper name” for biosimilar products and interchangeable products submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The average burden per response (hours) is based on the Agency's experience with similar information collection requirements.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21383 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0404] Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order; Guidance for Tobacco Retailers; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for tobacco retailers entitled “Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order.” The guidance represents FDA's current thinking with respect to imposing no-tobacco-sale orders (NTSOs) on retailers who have committed repeated violations of certain restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products. This guidance discusses, among other things, the period of time covered by an NTSO and a retailer's compliance with an NTSO.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Maschal, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1-877-287-1373, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for tobacco retailers entitled “Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance With an Order.” On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to give FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section 906(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387f(d)) authorizes FDA to issue regulations that restrict the sale and distribution of tobacco products if FDA determines such regulations would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. Section 303(f)(8) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)(8)) authorizes FDA to impose an NTSO against a person found to have committed repeated violations, at a particular retail outlet, of restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products issued under section 906(d) of the FD&C Act, such as FDA's “Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents” (21 CFR part 1140). The term “no-tobacco-sale order” refers to an order prohibiting the sale of tobacco products at a retail outlet indefinitely or for a specified period of time under section 303(f)(8) of the FD&C Act. A “repeated violation” means “at least 5 violations of particular requirements over a 36-month period at a particular retail outlet that constitute a repeated violation . . .” (section 103(q)(1)(A) of the Tobacco Control Act).

    FDA conducts inspections of retail outlets to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations. This guidance discusses the period of time to be covered by an NTSO where there is evidence of “repeated violations” at a particular retail outlet. It also discusses a retailer's compliance with an NTSO. This guidance is meant to supplement FDA's guidances entitled “Civil Money Penalties and No-Tobacco-Sale Orders for Tobacco Retailers” and “Civil Money Penalties for Tobacco Retailers and No-Tobacco-Sale Orders: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions.”

    In the Federal Register of May 13, 2015 (80 FR 27318), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title. FDA received comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA with respect to the period of time to be covered by NTSOs and retailers' compliance with NTSOs. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Comments A. General Information About Submitting Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    B. Public Availability of Comments

    Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. As a matter of Agency practice, FDA generally does not post comments submitted by individuals in their individual capacity on http://www.regulations.gov. This is determined by information indicating that the submission is written by an individual, for example, the comment is identified with the category “Individual Consumer” under the field titled “Category (Required),” on the “Your Information” page on http://www.regulations.gov. For this docket, however, FDA will not be following this general practice. Instead, FDA will post on http://www.regulations.gov comments to this docket that have been submitted by individuals in their individual capacity. If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, please refer to 21 CFR 10.20.

    C. Information Identifying the Person Submitting the Comment

    Please note that your name, contact information, and other information identifying you will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov if you include that information in the body of your comments. For electronic comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, FDA will post the body of your comment on http://www.regulations.gov along with your state/province and country (if provided), the name of your representative (if any), and the category identifying you (e.g., individual, consumer, academic, industry). For written submissions submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post the body of your comments on http://www.regulations.gov, but you can put your name and/or contact information on a separate cover sheet and not in the body of your comments.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21271 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration RIN 0906-AB08 340B Drug Pricing Program Omnibus Guidance AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), which is referred to as the “340B Drug Pricing Program” or the “340B Program.” This notice proposes guidance for covered entities enrolled in the 340B Program and drug manufacturers that are required by section 340B of the PHSA to make their drugs available to covered entities under the 340B Program. When finalized after consideration of public comments solicited by this notice, the guidance is intended to assist 340B covered entities and drug manufacturers in complying with the statute.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0906-AB08, by any of the following methods. Please submit your comments in only one of these ways to minimize the receipt of duplicate submissions. The first is the preferred method.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow instructions for submitting comments. This is the preferred method for the submission of comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include RIN 0906-AB08 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Krista Pedley, Director, Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    All submitted comments will be available to the public in their entirety.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Krista Pedley, Director, OPA, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, or by telephone at (301) 594-4353.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 602 of Public Law 102-585, the “Veterans Health Care Act of 1992,” enacted section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) “Limitation on Prices of Drugs Purchased by Covered Entities,” codified at 42 U.S.C. 256b. The intent of the 340B Program is to permit covered entities “to stretch scarce Federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” H.R. REP. No. 102-384(II), at 12 (1992). Eligible covered entity types are defined in section 340B(a)(4) of the PHSA, and only include health care organizations that have certain Federal designations or receive funding from specific Federal programs. These include Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program grantees, and certain types of hospitals and specialized clinics. Section 7101 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) (“Affordable Care Act”) expanded the types of covered entities eligible to participate in the 340B Program. As of January 1, 2015, there were 11,530 registered covered entities participating in the 340B Program.

    Section 340B of the PHSA instructs HHS to enter into a pharmaceutical pricing agreement (PPA) with certain drug manufacturers. If a drug manufacturer signs a PPA, it agrees that the prices charged for covered outpatient drugs to covered entities will not exceed 340B ceiling prices as defined by statute. HRSA calculates the ceiling prices quarterly using pricing data reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Pursuant to section 340B(a)(1) of the PHSA, the 340B ceiling price is calculated by subtracting the Unit Rebate Amount from the Average Manufacturer Price. As of January 1, 2015, there were 644 drug manufacturers participating in the 340B Program.

    When an eligible entity voluntarily decides to enroll and participate in the 340B Program, it accepts responsibility for ensuring compliance with all provisions of the 340B Program, including all associated costs. Since 1992, HHS has interpreted the statutory requirements of the 340B Program through guidances published in the Federal Register, typically after notice and opportunity for comment. HHS is proposing this omnibus guidance to provide increased clarity in the marketplace for all 340B Program stakeholders and strengthen HHS's ability to administer the 340B Program effectively. This notice clarifies many current 340B Program guidances. HHS encourages all stakeholders to provide comments on this proposed guidance.

    In September 2010, HHS published two advanced notices of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, 340B Drug Pricing Program Administrative Dispute Resolution Process (75 FR 57233 (September 20, 2010)) and 340B Drug Pricing Program Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties (75 FR 57230 (September 20, 2010)). HHS issued a proposed rule addressing manufacturer civil monetary penalties and calculation of ceiling prices in June 2015 (80 FR 34583 (June 17, 2015)). Future rulemaking will address the administrative dispute resolution process.

    II. Summary of the Proposed Guidance Part A—340B Program Eligibility and Registration

    Section 340B(a)(4) of the PHSA (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)) lists the entity types eligible to participate in the 340B Program and further requires that such entities must meet the requirements of section 340B(a)(5) of the PHSA. An entity participating in the 340B Program is referred to as a covered entity. HHS lists all covered entity sites registered for the 340B Program on the public 340B database.

    Covered Entities Non-Hospital Eligibility

    Non-hospital covered entities described in sections 340B(a)(4)(A) through (K) of the PHSA include entities that receive certain Federal grants, Federal contracts, Federal designations, or establish Federal projects. HHS will list non-hospital covered entities on the public 340B database if they demonstrate eligibility and provide information related to their qualifying grant, contract, designation, or project.

    A non-hospital covered entity also may include associated health care delivery sites located at a different address. These associated health care delivery sites will be listed on the public 340B database as able to purchase and use 340B drugs for their eligible patients if the non-hospital covered entity (“parent site”) registers the associated sites and provides information demonstrating that each site is performing services under the main qualifying grant, contract, designation, or project. Once registered, the associated sites of a covered entity parent site are termed “child sites.” For example, if a covered entity sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic demonstrates that an off-site location receives Federal funds, and is performing services within the scope of their grant, HHS will list that location on its database as a child site of the main clinic. HHS will list sites that are sub-recipients of Federal grants, but seeking their own 340B identification numbers separate from a parent entity, if those entities provide information demonstrating their receipt of eligible Federal funds, or in-kind contributions purchased with eligible Federal funds, as well as the grant number under which they receive those funds.

    Hospital Eligibility

    Section 340B(a)(4)(L) of the PHSA defines the 340B Program eligibility requirements for hospitals defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (commonly referred to as “subsection (d) hospitals”). Section 340B(a)(4)(L)(i) specifies three categories of hospital eligibility.

    The first category of hospital eligibility under section 340B(a)(4)(L)(i) of the PHSA requires hospital ownership or operation by a State or local government. HHS will list hospitals qualifying under this category if they are wholly owned by a State or local government and recognized as such in Internal Revenue Service filings and acknowledgements, if applicable, or other documentation from Federal entities. HHS also will list hospitals operated through an arrangement where the State or local government is the sole operating authority of a hospital.

    The second category of hospital eligibility under section 340B(a)(4)(L)(i) of the PHSA requires a hospital to be a public or private non-profit corporation which is formally granted governmental powers by a unit of State or local government. HHS will list hospitals qualifying under this provision if they are formally granted a power usually exercised by the State or local government through State or local statute or regulation, through creation of a public corporation, or through development of a hospital authority or district to provide health care to a community on behalf of the government. Examples of governmental powers include, but are not limited to, the power to tax, issue government bonds, and act on behalf of the government. HHS interprets section 340B(a)(4)(L)(i) of the PHSA as excluding hospitals that have been granted powers generally granted to private persons or corporations upon meeting of licensure requirements, such as a license to practice medicine or provide health care services commercially. HHS will list a hospital qualifying under this provision when it submits, as a part of its registration: (1) The name of the government entity granting the governmental power to the hospital; (2) a description of the governmental power granted to the hospital and a brief explanation as to why the power is considered to be governmental; and (3) a copy of any official documents issued by the State or local government to the hospital that reflect the formal grant of governmental power.

    The third category of hospital eligibility under section 340B(a)(4)(L)(i) of the PHSA includes a private non-profit hospital which has a contract with a State or local government to provide health care services to low-income individuals who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. HHS will list hospitals qualifying under this provision that provide a signed certification by the hospital's 340B Program authorizing official and an appropriate government official (such as the governor, county executive, mayor, or an individual authorized to represent and bind the governmental entity). The signed certification indicates that a contract is currently in place between the private, non-profit hospital and the State or local government to provide health care services to low-income individuals w