Federal Register Vol. 80, No.168,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 168 (August 31, 2015)

Page Range52375-52603
FR Document

80_FR_168
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 52522 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 52523 - Notice of Submission for Approval: Information Collection 3206-0182; Declaration for Federal Employment, Optional Form (OF) 306.PDF
80 FR 52497 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Accounts Receivable Confirmations-OMB Control Number 1012-0001; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52534 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Alberto Burri: The Trauma of Painting” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 52534 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Power of Pictures: Early Soviet Photography, Early Soviet Film” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 52535 - Additional Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Joaquín Torres-García: The Arcadian Modern” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 52525 - Notice of Submission for Approval: Information Collection 3206-0106; Interview Survey Form, INV 10PDF
80 FR 52523 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 52537 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of DirectorsPDF
80 FR 52510 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex Charles CityPDF
80 FR 52510 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Noramco, Inc.PDF
80 FR 52471 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fuel Use Requirements for Great Lake Steamships (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 52500 - United States v. Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 52459 - Applications for New Awards; Juvenile Justice Reentry Education Program: Opening Doors to College and Careers Through Career and Technical EducationPDF
80 FR 52484 - National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; VacanciesPDF
80 FR 52423 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk CTPDF
80 FR 52398 - Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Sister Bay Marinafest FireworksPDF
80 FR 52398 - Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Sister Bay Marinafest Ski ShowPDF
80 FR 52396 - Safety Zone; Incredoubleman Triathlon; Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NYPDF
80 FR 52511 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials, Inc.PDF
80 FR 52510 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLCPDF
80 FR 52513 - Membership of the Senior Executive Service Standing Performance Review BoardsPDF
80 FR 52475 - Pfizer Inc. and Hospira, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 52455 - Madrid ProtocolPDF
80 FR 52375 - Eligibility of Lithuania To Export Meat and Meat Products to the United StatesPDF
80 FR 52486 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated AreasPDF
80 FR 52436 - Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Jackson County, Arkansas, and Incorporated AreasPDF
80 FR 52447 - Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent to Revoke the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 52446 - Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
80 FR 52538 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 52494 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CAPDF
80 FR 52454 - Multistakeholder Process To Promote Collaboration on Vulnerability Research DisclosurePDF
80 FR 52493 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: New York State Museum, Albany, NYPDF
80 FR 52490 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, and the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks, AKPDF
80 FR 52440 - Recognizing European Union (EU) and EU Member State Regionalization Decisions for African Swine Fever (ASF) by Updating the APHIS List of Regions Affected with ASFPDF
80 FR 52494 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, INPDF
80 FR 52491 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Fort Benning, GA; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 52535 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning Russia's Implementation of Its WTO ObligationsPDF
80 FR 52488 - Notice of Inventory Completion: History Colorado, Formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, COPDF
80 FR 52492 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University, College Station, TXPDF
80 FR 52535 - Determination Under Section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 52496 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Dallas Water Utilities, Dallas, TexasPDF
80 FR 52534 - Determination by the Secretary of State Relating to Iran SanctionsPDF
80 FR 52495 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TXPDF
80 FR 52472 - National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and TechnologyPDF
80 FR 52472 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 52472 - Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 52483 - National Institute On Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 52480 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 52481 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52483 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 52482 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52458 - Procurement List; Addition and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 52478 - Emergency Clearance: Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
80 FR 52511 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Rhodes TechnologiesPDF
80 FR 52509 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Alltech Associates, Inc.PDF
80 FR 52525 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 52483 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 52500 - Woven Electric Blankets From China; Termination of Five-year ReviewPDF
80 FR 52509 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Catalent CTS, LLCPDF
80 FR 52485 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the Trusted Trader ProgramPDF
80 FR 52444 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 52475 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 52444 - Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship MeetingPDF
80 FR 52486 - Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan, Southern California Gas Company, Pipeline 1010-Purisima, Santa Barbara County, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 52537 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Edgar County, Ill.PDF
80 FR 52537 - Notice of Intent for Interstate 55 Interchange in Shelby County, TennesseePDF
80 FR 52448 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Online Customer Relationship Management (CRM)/Performance Databases, the Online Phoenix Database, and the Online Opportunity DatabasePDF
80 FR 52445 - President's Export Council; Subcommittee on Export Administration; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 52499 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0035PDF
80 FR 52451 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52449 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52450 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52450 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 52499 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0043PDF
80 FR 52445 - Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 52470 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 52540 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52468 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 52482 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52469 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-915); Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52470 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 52541 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52526 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 52419 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 52399 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Michigan State Board RequirementsPDF
80 FR 52540 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 14242 and Form 14242 (SP)PDF
80 FR 52539 - Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review BoardsPDF
80 FR 52442 - Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 52479 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
80 FR 52426 - Notice of Final Approval for the Operation of Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flares at The Dow Chemical Company and ExxonMobil Chemical Company and Notice of Receipt of Approval Request for the Operation of a Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flare at Occidental Chemical CorporationPDF
80 FR 52478 - Notice of Standard Terms and Conditions for Council GrantsPDF
80 FR 52392 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tracy, CAPDF
80 FR 52473 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 52474 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 52530 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 3280 (Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person) in the Consolidated FINRA RulebookPDF
80 FR 52526 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) OrdersPDF
80 FR 52529 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Data FeesPDF
80 FR 52532 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 52512 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: Body Worn Camera Supplement (BWCS) to the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) SurveyPDF
80 FR 52521 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Planetary Science Subcommittee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 52522 - NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education; MeetingPDF
80 FR 52482 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 52480 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 52484 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 52415 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability MeasuresPDF
80 FR 52452 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18902PDF
80 FR 52451 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 14122, 14585PDF
80 FR 52453 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 18722, 18897, 19425, and 19497PDF
80 FR 52443 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Construction Progress Reporting SurveyPDF
80 FR 52447 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 52441 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 52408 - Radio Experimentation and Market TrialsPDF
80 FR 52437 - Radio Experimentation and Market TrialsPDF
80 FR 52379 - Community Development Financial Institutions ProgramPDF
80 FR 52403 - Dimethomorph; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 52544 - Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Cleared SwapsPDF
80 FR 52393 - Safety Zone-Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AKPDF
80 FR 52401 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) PermittingPDF
80 FR 52588 - Guidelines for Permitting Archaeological Investigations and Other Activities Directed at Sunken Military Craft and Terrestrial Military Craft Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the NavyPDF

Issue

80 168 Monday, August 31, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Guidance: African Swine Fever; European Union and EU Member State Regionalization Decisions; Updating APHIS List of Regions Affected, 52440-52441 2015-21497 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement: United States v. Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd. et al., 52500-52509 2015-21534 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Construction Progress Reporting Survey, 52443-52444 2015-21389 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Emergency Clearance, 52478-52479 2015-21476 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks, 52398-52399 2015-21524 Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show, 52398 2015-21523 Incredoubleman Triathlon; Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY, 52396-52398 2015-21522 Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK, 52393-52396 2015-21017 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Norwalk River, Norwalk CT, 52423-52426 2015-21531 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 52484-52485 2015-21532 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

Minority Business Development Agency

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 52458-52459 2015-21477 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Cleared Swaps, 52544-52586 2015-21030 Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund RULES Community Development Financial Institutions Program, 52379-52392 2015-21227 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Rhodes Technologies, Coventry, RI, 52511-52512 2015-21471 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Alltech Associates, Inc., Deerfield, IL, 52509-52510 2015-21470 Cambrex Charles City, Charles City, IA, 52510-52511 2015-21557 Catalent CTS, LLC, Kansas City, MO, 52509 2015-21464 Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, 52510 2015-21520 Noramco, Inc., Athens, GA, 52510 2015-21545 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials, Inc., West Deptford, NJ, 52511 2015-21521 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 52444 2015-21459 Petitions: Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility, 52444-52445 2015-21462 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Juvenile Justice Reentry Education Program—Opening Doors to College and Careers through Career and Technical Education, 52459-52468 2015-21533 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; State Board Requirements, 52399-52401 2015-21426 New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting, 52401-52403 2015-21015 Pesticide Tolerances: Dimethomorph, 52403-52408 2015-21192 PROPOSED RULES Operation of Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flares at The Dow Chemical Co. and ExxonMobil Chemical Co., etc., 52426-52436 2015-21420 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fuel Use Requirements for Great Lake Steamships; Renewal, 52471 2015-21535 Charter Renewals: Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, 52472 2015-21484 Meetings: Chartered Science Advisory Board; Teleconferences, 52472-52473 2015-21485 National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, 52472 2015-21486 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Tracy, CA, 52392-52393 2015-21414 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 52419-52423 2015-21428 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio Experimentation and Market Trials, 52408-52415 2015-21295 PROPOSED RULES Radio Experimentation and Market Trials, 52437-52439 2015-21294 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52473-52475 2015-21407 2015-21408 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency PROPOSED RULES Flood Elevation Determinations: Jackson County, AR, and Incorporated Areas, 52436-52437 2015-21507 NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 52486 2015-21509 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52469-52470 2015-21436 Combined Filings, 52468-52471 2015-21435 2015-21438 2015-21440 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Interstate 55 Interchange in Shelby County, TN, 52537 2015-21455 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52537 2015-21590 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 52475 2015-21461 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment: Pfizer Inc. and Hospira, Inc., 52475-52478 2015-21513 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plans: Southern California Gas Co., Pipeline 1010—Purisima, Santa Barbara County, CA, 52486-52488 2015-21457 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52441-52442 2015-21341 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service RULES Eligibility of Lithuania to Export Meat and Meat Products to the United States, 52375-52379 2015-21510 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52442-52443 2015-21422 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Standard Terms and Conditions for Council Grants, 52478 2015-21417 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 52479-52480 2015-21421
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration, 52445-52446 2015-21451 Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee, 52445 2015-21442 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52540 2015-21425 Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards, 52539-52540 2015-21423 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 52447 2015-21375 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands, 52447-52448 2015-21504 Solid Urea from the Russian Federation, 52446-52447 2015-21503 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Woven Electric Blankets from China; Termination of Five-year Review, 52500 2015-21466 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Body Worn Camera Supplement to the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey, 52512 2015-21400 Membership of the Senior Executive Service Standing Performance Review Boards, 52513-52521 2015-21516
Minority Business Minority Business Development Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Online Customer Relationship Management/Performance Databases, the Online Phoenix Database, and the Online Opportunity Database, 52448-52449 2015-21454 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education, 52522 2015-21398 NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Planetary Science Subcommittee, 52521-52522 2015-21399 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 52480-52482 2015-21396 2015-21480 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 52482-52484 2015-21397 2015-21467 National Cancer Institute, 52483 2015-21479 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 52480 2015-21481 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 52482-52483 2015-21478 National Institute of Mental Health, 52482 2015-21437 National Institute on Aging, 52483 2015-21482 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 52484 2015-21395 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Pacific Island Fisheries: 2015 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures, 52415-52418 2015-21394 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 52451 2015-21448 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 52449-52451 2015-21445 2015-21447 New England Fishery Management Council, 52450 2015-21446 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 18902, 52452-52453 2015-21392 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 14122, 14585, 52451-52452 2015-21391 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 18722, 18897, 19425, and 19497, 52453-52454 2015-21390 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A and M University, College Station, TX, 52492-52493 2015-21492 Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, 52495-52496 2015-21488 Dallas Water Utilities, Dallas, TX, 52496-52497 2015-21490 Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 52494-52495 2015-21496 History Colorado, formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO, 52488-52489 2015-21493 Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Fort Benning, GA; Correction, 52491-52492 2015-21495 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, and the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks, AK, 52490-52491 2015-21498 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA, 52494 2015-21501 New York State Museum, Albany, NY, 52493-52494 2015-21499 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Multistakeholder Process to Promote Collaboration on Vulnerability Research Disclosure, 52454-52455 2015-21500 Navy Navy Department RULES Guidelines for Permitting Archaeological Investigations and Other Activities Directed at Sunken Military Craft and Terrestrial Military Craft under the Jurisdiction of the Navy, 52588-52603 2015-20795 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52522-52523 2015-21641 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52497-52498 2015-21621 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52523 2015-21598 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Madrid Protocol, 52455-52458 2015-21512 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Declaration for Federal Employment, 52523-52525 2015-21627 Interview Survey Form, 52525 2015-21608 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 52525-52526 2015-21429 2015-21468 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 52532-52534 2015-21402 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 52526-52528 2015-21404 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 52530-52532 2015-21405 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 52529-52530 2015-21403 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: Alberto Burri—The Trauma of Painting Exhibition, 52534-52535 2015-21618 Joaquin Torres-Garcia—The Arcadian Modern Exhibition, 52535 2015-21614 The Power of Pictures—Early Soviet Photography, Early Soviet Film Exhibition, 52534 2015-21615 Determinations under the Foreign Assistance Act, 52535 2015-21491 Determinations: Iran Sanctions, 52534 2015-21489 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52499-52500 2015-21443 2015-21450 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Edgar County, IL, 52537-52538 2015-21456 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Hearings: Russia's Implementation of its WTO Obligations, 52535-52536 2015-21494 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52538-52539 2015-21502
Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52540-52542 2015-21430 2015-21433 2015-21439
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism and the Trusted Trader Program, 52485-52486 2015-21463 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 52544-52586 2015-21030 Part III Defense Department, Navy Department, 52588-52603 2015-20795 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.

80 168 Monday, August 31, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 327 [Docket No. FSIS-2014-0040] RIN 0583-AD57 Eligibility of Lithuania To Export Meat and Meat Products to the United States AGENCY:

Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the Federal meat inspection regulations to add the Republic of Lithuania (Lithuania) to the list of countries eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States. FSIS has reviewed Lithuania's laws, regulations, and inspection system, as implemented, and has determined that they are equivalent to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the regulations implementing this statute, and the United States food safety system for meat and meat products.

Under this final rule, meat from cattle, sheep, swine, and goats slaughtered in Lithuania, or parts or other products thereof, processed in certified Lithuanian establishments, will be eligible for export to the United States. All such products will be subject to reinspection at United States ports of entry by FSIS inspectors.

DATES:

Effective: October 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On December 17, 2014, FSIS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 75073) to add Lithuania to the list of countries eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States (9 CFR 327(b)). This final rule is consistent with the proposed rule.

As is explained in the proposed rule, under the FMIA and implementing regulations, meat and meat products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling that are equivalent to those of the United States (21 U.S.C. 620). The FMIA also requires that the livestock from which such imports are produced be slaughtered and handled in connection with slaughter in a manner that is consistent with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901-1906).

Section 327.2 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States. Paragraph 327.2(a) requires that a foreign country's meat inspection system provide standards equivalent to those of the United States and to provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's laws and regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem inspection, humane methods of slaughter and handling, and post-mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering and preparation of product by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements found in the FMIA and its implementing regulations (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(ii)).

The country's inspection system must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(i)).

Evaluation of the Lithuanian Meat Inspection System

In 2004, the government of Lithuania initially requested approval to export meat, poultry, and egg products to the United States. In January 2012, Lithuania amended its request to include only meat and meat products. FSIS then began to evaluate Lithuania's inspection system to determine whether it is equivalent to the United States' system.

FSIS conducted a document review of Lithuania's meat inspection system through information provided on FSIS's Self-Reporting Tool (SRT) 1 to determine whether its system is equivalent to that of the United States. FSIS examined the information submitted by Lithuania to verify that the following equivalence components were addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement: (1) Government Oversight; (2) Statutory Authority and Food Safety Regulations; (3) Sanitation; (4) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems; (5) Chemical Residue Testing Programs; and (6) Microbiological Testing Programs. From that review, FSIS concluded that Lithuania's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were sufficient to achieve the level of public health protection required by FSIS.

1 The SRT is a standardized questionnaire that FSIS provides to foreign governments to gather information that characterizes foreign inspection systems according to the six equivalence components and as required by 9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(iii). FSIS asks foreign governments to submit documentation, such as their inspection system laws, regulations, and policy issuances, that supports their responses to the SRT questions.

FSIS then proceeded with an initial on-site audit of Lithuania's meat inspection system in September 2012 and concluded that Lithuania's system met each equivalence component except sanitation. Lithuania's State Food and Veterinary Service (SFVS), which is Lithuania's central competent authority in charge of food inspection, took immediate corrective actions to address the audit team's findings and provided a corrective action plan, which included new regulations, procedures, implementation measures, and verification activities. FSIS reviewed the plan and concluded that it addressed all of the audit findings.

FSIS conducted a second on-site audit in September 2013 to verify that all outstanding issues identified during the previous audit had been resolved and that Lithuania had satisfactorily implemented all of the laws, regulations, and instructions to the field that FSIS found to be equivalent during the document review and previous audit. FSIS concluded, on the basis of this audit, that Lithuania had satisfactorily implemented the corrective action plan that it had submitted in response to the 2012 audit.

Consequently, on December 17, 2014, FSIS published a proposed rule to find that Lithuania's meat inspection system is equivalent to the United States' system and, therefore, to add Lithuania to the list of countries eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States. For more detailed information on FSIS's evaluation of the Lithuanian meat inspection system, see the proposed rule (79 FR 75073), and for the full audit reports, go to: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

Final Rule

After considering the comments received on the proposed rule, discussed below, FSIS concludes that Lithuania's meat inspection system is equivalent to the United States' inspection system for meat and meat products. Therefore, FSIS is amending its meat inspection regulations to add Lithuania to the list of countries eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). Under FSIS's import regulations, the government of Lithuania must certify to FSIS that those establishments that wish to export meat and meat products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 327.2(a)).

Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS's regulations as eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States, including those of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of the APHIS regulations, which regulate the importation of meat and meat products from countries into the United States to control the spread of specific animal diseases.

Also, under this final rule, all meat and meat products exported to the United States from Lithuania will be subject to reinspection by FSIS at United States ports of entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count.

FSIS will conduct other types of reinspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis to detect any drug or chemical residues or pathogens that may render the product unsafe or any species or product composition violations that would render the product economically adulterated. Products that pass reinspection will be stamped with the official mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days will have to be returned to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), depending on the violation. The import reinspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/port-of-entry-procedures.

In addition, Lithuanian meat and meat products will be eligible for importation into the United States only if they are from animals slaughtered on or after the effective date of this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Responses

FSIS received seven comments in response to the proposed rule. One individual supported the proposed rule. Two individuals, a consumer advocacy organization, and three trade associations representing the pork industry, opposed it. After review and consideration of these comments, FSIS is finalizing the regulation as proposed. The following is a brief summary of the relevant issues raised in the comments and FSIS's responses.

1. Animal Diseases

Comment: One individual opposed importing Lithuanian meat and meat products, stating that animal feeding practices in Lithuania would not effectively prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Three pork industry groups opposed the rule, stating that several cases of African Swine Fever (ASF) reported over the past year in domestic and feral swine populations in Lithuania and adjacent countries would lead to problems in the United States. A consumer advocacy organization stated that allowing Lithuanian products into the United States could lead to the transmission of certain animal diseases into the United States because Lithuania shares common borders with countries that are not free of ASF, Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD), Classical Swine Fever (CSF), or Swine Vesicular Disease (SVD) and has trade practices with these countries that are less restrictive than those of the United States.

Agency Response: To export meat and meat products to the United States, countries need to meet the APHIS requirements for animal disease prevention and control. APHIS uses several methods to ensure that harmful animal diseases do not enter the United States. These include actively monitoring the animal disease status of foreign countries and maintaining lists of countries and regions considered to be free (or not free) of certain diseases. If an animal disease is found to exist in a country (or a region within a country) that exports meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States, APHIS requires specific processing steps to ensure that any product from that country or region will not cause the disease to be transmitted to the United States (see 9 CFR part 94).

In addition to these monitoring and processing provisions, APHIS requires imported meat, poultry, and egg products to have accompanying documentation regarding their origin, animal disease status, degree of processing, and intended use. At the U.S. border, CBP officials verify that such documentation is accurate and that the products do not pose an animal disease transmission risk. These steps take place before FSIS reinspects imported product for food safety and other regulatory compliance. All meat and meat products that APHIS restricts from entering the United States because of animal disease concerns will be refused entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

In the case of BSE, APHIS takes into consideration the risk status recognition as determined by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), or conducts its own BSE risk determination upon request. OIE designates countries as having a negligible or controlled BSE risk. Countries that do not meet those designations are considered to have an undetermined risk. OIE and APHIS currently designate Lithuania as a country with controlled BSE risk. The review of Lithuania's food safety system for potential BSE contamination also indicated that SFVS employs effective measures to prevent Specified Risk Materials (SRM) (materials from cattle that scientific studies have demonstrated can contain the BSE agent in cattle infected with the disease) from contaminating the food supply. Removal of SRMs decreases the risk of introduction of BSE to a negligible level. Therefore, FSIS has determined that Lithuania's measures to remove SRMs from its food supply adequately address the potential risk that the BSE agent could contaminate products destined for the United States.

APHIS currently considers Lithuania to be free of SVD, rinderpest, and FMD. APHIS, however, has placed Lithuania in a “special category” because of its common land border with countries that have not been identified to be free of these diseases, and because Lithuania's trade practices are less restrictive than those of the United States. Lithuania's trade practices could, therefore, result in a Lithuanian meat supply that is supplemented with animal products from neighboring countries. Establishments in “special category” countries must certify compliance with specific APHIS regulations, which ensure that animals and animal products received by these establishments, and the products produced by them, are not contaminated through contact with regions where these diseases exist (see 9 CFR 94.11(c)(2) and 94.13(c)(2)).

APHIS recognizes that ASF outbreaks have occurred in wild boar and domestic swine in Lithuania. Lithuania has imposed controls, consistent with European Union legislation, to prevent the spread of this disease. These controls restrict the movement of pigs and pig products, including pork, from areas where the disease has occurred. Were APHIS to add any geographic area of Lithuania to the list of ASF-affected regions, Lithuania would be required to comply with 9 CFR 94.8(b)-(d), which mandates cooking, sealing, cleaning, processing, packing, certification, transportation, and handling requirements.

Under the final rule, Lithuania will be eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States, but will be required to meet APHIS's requirements. Because Lithuania's disease status may change with respect to any animal disease, FSIS will coordinate with APHIS and consider how any change may affect Lithuania's eligibility to export certain types of products to the United States.

2. Domestic Production

Comment: One individual argued that increasing demand for goat meat in the United States should be met through increased local goat production rather than imports. Another individual opposed the rule because the United States already has thousands of meat products in commerce.

Agency Response: The final rule will list Lithuania as eligible to export meat and meat products derived from cattle, swine, sheep, and goats to the United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). Although Lithuania will be listed as eligible, it is unlikely to export significant quantities of goat meat or meat products to the United States. Lithuania is a net importer of goat meat and does not have export capacity in this area. In 2014, Lithuania imported about $3,000 worth of such products, less than one metric ton (MT), and did not export any such products. Currently, the United States imports about 19,000 MT of goat meat per year, of which 98% comes from Australia. Lithuania must be export-capable and price-competitive to compete in this market. As is discussed in the economic analysis below, Lithuania has stated that it intends to export only canned, dried, smoked beef and pork products to the United States at this time.

3. Adequate Regulation

Comment: One individual stated that the FDA was unqualified to certify Lithuanian establishments seeking to export meat or meat products to the United States.

Agency Response: Under 9 CFR 327.2(a)(3), the government of Lithuania must certify to FSIS that those establishments that wish to export meat and meat products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States. These certifications are subject to review by FSIS. FSIS also conducts periodic equivalence audits of countries eligible to export meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States and will do so for Lithuania. Every imported meat or meat product must enter the United States through an official import inspection establishment and be reinspected by an FSIS import inspector.

4. Audit Report Findings

Comment: A consumer advocacy organization expressed several concerns regarding the two audits of Lithuania's meat inspection system. The organization stated that: (1) The reports are incomplete because they fail to include establishment checklists used by the FSIS auditor to evaluate how well the Lithuanian inspection program enforced food safety laws and regulations at the plant level; (2) the first audit found that Lithuania's SFVS had inexplicably dropped a requirement that establishments seeking to export to the United States maintain written Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures; (3) the second audit noted that improvement was still needed in Lithuania's inspectors' verification of establishments' compliance with zero tolerance requirements for fecal material, ingesta, and milk on carcasses and meat parts; (4) in the second audit report, audit staff were concerned about the ability of Lithuanian inspection personnel to recognize potential sanitation issues in ready‐to‐eat processing facilities; and (5) neither audit report mentioned what precautions the Lithuanian food safety authorities would take as a consequence of the 2013 horse meat scandal in the European Union, in which Lithuanian products were implicated.

Agency Response: FSIS's evaluation of all the data collected before, during, and after the on-site audits supports the conclusion that the Lithuanian meat regulatory system achieves a level of protection equivalent to that of the United States. FSIS evaluated how well Lithuania's inspection program enforced food safety laws and regulations at the plant level, including audit checklists for specific establishments. The Lithuania establishment checklists are posted at the following link: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

The follow-up audit of Lithuania's meat inspection system confirmed that SFVS adequately and effectively addressed all the findings related to the previous FSIS initial equivalence on-site audit conducted from September 10-26, 2012. The FSIS auditor attested that all corrective actions were implemented in a manner consistent with FSIS's inspection requirements. Additionally, SFVS responded adequately to two areas in need of improvement: Verifying that establishments' HACCP systems ensure that all portions of carcasses were free of visible contamination with fecal material, milk, or ingesta, and requiring that establishments control the movement of personnel and materials in establishments producing Ready-to-Eat (RTE) products. SFVS required immediate adjustments to establishments' HACCP systems and sanitation programs, introduced correlation sessions to reinforce supervisors' understanding of food safety tasks related to export to the United States, and implemented on-going training programs for the inspection program personnel. SFVS implemented its corrective action plan and provided supporting documents during and after its exit meeting with FSIS. These corrective actions improved the performance of official verification activities and demonstrated SFVS's commitment to consistently meeting the requirements for exporting meat and meat products to the United States.

In 2013, a variety of meat products in the European Union were found to contain meat which was not declared on the label, including horse meat and pork. In response, the European Commission and EU Member States, including Lithuania, have pursued efforts to ensure the proper labeling of meat products, including increased communication among food safety agencies regarding food fraud, DNA monitoring, revised registration and identification procedures for horses in the EU, increased penalties for fraudulent activity, and stricter origin labeling. Lithuania, as a Member of the EU, is bound by the EU Regulations under which these actions have been taken.

FSIS also verified that SFVS conducts species verification testing of meat and meat products intended for both domestic production and export, in accordance with the SFVS Director Order No B1-23. This testing will ensure that only eligible species will be exported to the United States. Furthermore, the FSIS auditor verified that Lithuanian establishments are required to ensure that food intended for human consumption is adequately labeled or identified to facilitate its traceability in accordance with Article 18 for Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. The identification and labeling requirements include, at least, the source of food, animal byproduct, or ingredients in a manner that supports effective investigation and traceability. FSIS is confident that the Lithuanian measures in place, along with its reinspection and verification activities at United States ports of entry, will ensure that fraudulently labeled Lithuanian meat products will not enter United States commerce.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule was designated a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this rule was not reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866.

Economic Impact Analysis

FSIS is adopting, in its entirety, the proposed regulatory impact analysis from the proposed rule.2 Lithuania expressed an intent to export canned, dried, or smoked beef and pork products to the United States. Lithuania, however, will not be precluded from exporting other meat products in the future if the products meet all applicable APHIS and FSIS requirements for those products. Given the limited market in the United States for Lithuanian meat products and Lithuania's low projected export volume, there is likely to be little, if any, impact on the United States economy.

2 79 FR 75075.

Lithuania is a small beef producer with limited beef export capacity. Its maximum beef export to the world was achieved in 2011, when it exported $130 million, or 25,000 MT, worth of beef, mainly to the European Union and Russia. Based on analysis of Lithuania's exports to Russia, FSIS estimates that Lithuania has an excess beef export capacity of $26 million ($130 million − $104 million = $26 million) in value, or 3,000 MT (25,000 MT − 22,000 MT = 3,000 MT) in volume, that could be exported to the United States.3

3 This data is from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, and is based on Lithuania's official statistics. It is also available at the Global Trade Atlas database at: http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/gateway.cfm.

Accordingly, allowing Lithuanian beef exports to enter the 13,050,000-MT 4 United States beef market is expected to have minimal effect (3,000 MT represents a 0.023% increase), leaving the total United States beef supply almost unchanged. Because importing beef from Lithuania is not expected to greatly alter the United States beef supply, it will not contribute to any price change in that market.

4 Source: Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) data, available at: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx.

Lithuanian data from CY2013 5 shows that this country reached its maximum pork export capacity, meaning it will export little, if any, pork to the United States. Considering that the United States pork supply is 11,212,000 MT (CY2013),6 it is unlikely that imports from Lithuania will result in price changes in the United States pork market.

5 This data is from Eurostat, based on Lithuania's official statistics. It is also available at the Global Trade Atlas database at: http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/gateway.cfm.

6 Source: FAS PSD data, available at: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx.

This cost analysis was based on Lithuania's full export capacity. Currently, however, only six Lithuanian establishments intend to export product to the United States. Four are meat processors only, one is a slaughter facility, and one conducts both meat slaughter and processing. Of the four processing facilities, three process beef and pork, and one processes pork only. The slaughter-only facility and the facility that conducts both slaughter and processing both handle beef and pork. The combined export capacity of these six establishments is much less than Lithuania's total export capacity. With no price change expected in U.S. meat markets, the final rule would not lead to any negative effects on U.S. consumers.

Lithuanian companies that export product to the United States and domestic companies that import products from Lithuania to the United States will incur standard costs such as export fees and freight and insurance costs. They will be willing to bear these costs because of the anticipated financial benefits associated with marketing their products in the United States.

The final rule will increase trade between the United States and Lithuania. The volume of trade stimulated by this rule is likely to be small and is expected to have little or no effect on U.S. meat supplies or meat prices. U.S. consumers, however, are expected to enjoy more choices when purchasing meat and meat products. Lithuanian establishments will export commercially sterile meat products, including canned meat products and ready-to-eat products like salamis and other dried and smoked meats to the United States. The final rule expands choices for U.S. consumers and promotes economic competition.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment

The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export meat and meat products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems provide standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS provided Lithuania with questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB number 0583-0153. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

E-Government Act

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

Additional Public Notification

FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this rule and will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/interim-and-final-rules.

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

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

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

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

How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

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

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

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected]

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

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 327

Imported products.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR part 327 as follows:

9 CFR PART 327—IMPORTED PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 327 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.

§ 327.2 [Amended]
2. Amend § 327.2(b) by adding “Lithuania” in alphabetical order to the list of countries.
Done at Washington, DC, on: August 13, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-21510 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 12 CFR Part 1805 RIN 1505-AA92 Community Development Financial Institutions Program AGENCY:

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comment.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury is issuing an interim rule implementing the Community Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program), administered by the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund). This interim rule includes revisions necessary to implement the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards published by the Department of the Treasury on December 19, 2014, as well as to make technical corrections and other updates to the current rule.

DATES:

Effective date: August 31, 2015; all comments must be written and must be received in the offices of the CDFI Fund on or before October 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments concerning this interim rule via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (please follow the instructions for submitting comments). All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained through the CDFI Fund's Web site at http://www.cdfifund.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amber Kuchar, CDFI Program Manager, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, was authorized by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) (the Act). The purpose of the CDFI Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). The mission of the CDFI Fund is to increase economic opportunity and promote community development investments for underserved populations and in distressed communities in the United States. Its long-term vision is an America in which all people have access to affordable credit, capital, and financial services. The purpose of the CDFI Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). Through the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund directly invests in, supports, and trains CDFIs that provide loans, investments, financial services, and technical assistance to underserved populations and communities by providing (i) financial assistance in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, and deposits to CDFIs and (ii) technical assistance grants to CDFIs and entities that propose to become CDFIs, for the purpose of increasing their capacity to serve their Target Markets. The CDFI Fund provides such financial assistance to CDFIs to enhance their ability to make loans and investments, and to provide related services for the benefit of designated Investment Areas, Targeted Populations, or both. Awards are made through a competitive, merit-based application process.

Through the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund uses Federal resources to invest in CDFIs and to build their capacity to serve low-income people and communities that lack access to affordable financial products and services. Through the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund provides two types of monetary awards to CDFIs: financial assistance awards and technical assistance awards. Applicants participate in the CDFI Program through a competitive, merit-based quantitative and qualitative application and selection process in which the CDFI Fund makes funding decisions based on pre-established evaluation criteria. An entity may receive a CDFI Program award only after entering into an Assistance Agreement with the CDFI Fund that includes performance goals, matching funds requirements (if applicable), and reporting requirements.

On December 19, 2014, the Department of the Treasury published a final rule, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 1000), which adopted the government-wide framework for grants management codified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at 2 CFR 200 (the Uniform Requirements). The Uniform Requirements combine grant-related OMB guidance circulars—reducing the administrative burden for award Recipients and reducing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal financial assistance—and establish financial, administrative, procurement, and program management standards for Federal award-making agencies, including the CDFI Fund and its award Recipients.

On April 10, 2015, the CDFI Fund published in the Federal Register an amendment to the interim rule (80 FR 19195) modifying the certification requirements for CDFI Bond Guarantee Program participants seeking to meet the “financing entity” criterion of the CDFI certification requirements. The deadline for the submission of comments on the current rule was June 9, 2015.

II. Comments on the April 10, 2015 Interim Rule

As of the close of the June 9, 2015 comment period, the CDFI Fund received no comments on the current rule.

III. Summary of Changes

Throughout the rule, the defined term “Awardee” has been replaced by “Recipient.” Further, award funds being transmitted from the CDFI Fund to Recipients are referred to as payments, rather than disbursements. These changes were made to align the terminology in the CDFI Program regulations with the terms used in the Uniform Requirements. Other changes to the rule are specified below:

A. Section 1805.102, Relationship to Other CDFI Fund Programs

This section has been revised to clarify that the restrictions on entities applying for, receiving, and using CDFI Program awards, as well as awards through other CDFI Fund programs during the same annual award application cycle, will be described in the corresponding funding notices for those programs.

B. Section 1805.104, Definitions

As indicated above, the defined term “Awardee” has been removed and replaced with the defined term “Recipient”. The defined term “Fund” has been removed and replaced with the defined term “Community Development Financial Institutions Fund” so as to provide clear delineation between the CDFI Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, another CDFI Fund program. The definition of “Comprehensive Business Plan” has been modified to better reflect the Act's requirements for Comprehensive Business Plans submitted with funding applications. The definition of Development Services has been modified for clarity. The definition of “Financial Product” has been modified to eliminate grants by CDFI Intermediaries to CDFIs and/or emerging CDFIs from the definition. The CDFI Fund believes that this change is necessary to ensure that Recipients apply their financial assistance award funding directly to eligible activities rather than passing their financial assistance awards on to other CDFIs. “Uniform Requirements” has been added as a defined term. In addition, the paragraph numbering has been removed to allow for future modifications to the Definitions section without the need for re-numbering the entire section.

C. Section 1805.105, Uniform Requirements; Waiver Authority

Section 1805.105(a), Uniform Requirements, has been added to affirm that the Uniform Requirements will be applied to all awards made pursuant to this part, as applicable.

D. Section 1805.201, Certification as a Community Development Financial Institution

Section 1805.201(b)(3)(ii)(B), Geographic Units, has been revised to better conform the description of eligible Investment Areas to the language of the Act. References to “American Indian or Alaska Native area” have been replaced with “Indian Reservation.”

Section 1805.201(b)(4), Development Services, has been revised to permit Development Services to be offered in conjunction with Financial Services in order to meet the certification requirement that CDFIs must provide Development Services. Previously, only Development Services in conjunction with Financial Products met this requirement.

Section 1805.201(b)(5), Accountability, has been revised to require that a CDFI must demonstrate accountability to residents of its Target Market through representation on either its governing board or advisory board. Previously, other means of demonstrating accountability were permitted.

Section 1805.201(c), Records and Review, has been added to clarify that each certified CDFI is subject to periodic review by the CDFI Fund to ensure continued compliance with the CDFI certification requirements in this part, as well as to review the certified CDFI's organizational capacity, lending activity, community impacts, and such other information that the CDFI Fund deems appropriate. CDFIs will be required to provide, upon request, additional information and documentation to the CDFI Fund to facilitate this review.

E. Section 1805.502, Severe Constraints Waiver

Section 1805.502(c) has been revised to indicate that the terms of the severe constraints waiver will be set forth in the affected Recipient's Assistance Agreement.

F. Section 1805.504, Retained Earnings

Section 1805.504(a) has been revised to eliminate the restriction on Applicants submitting as matching funds those retained earnings that have been accumulated by the Applicant after the end of the Applicant's most recent fiscal year end prior to the application deadline. The CDFI Fund believes that this change will allow Applicants additional flexibility in attracting and obtaining matching funds.

Section 1805.504(c) has been revised to permit Insured Depository Institutions to use retained earnings that have been accumulated since the inception of the organization as matching funds for financial assistance awards. Previously, this option was only available to Insured Credit Unions and State-Insured Credit Unions.

Section 1805.504(c)(1)(iii)(D) has been revised to eliminate the July 31 date as a specified deadline for the measurement of required increases in member shares, non-member shares, outstanding loans, and other measurable activity. Under the current rule, Insured Credit Union and State-Insured Credit Union Applicants may use the increase in retained earnings since the inception of the organization as matching funds so long as they also demonstrate a required amount of increase in shares, loans, and other activity as described in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability. Due to fluctuations in the timing of the funding rounds, the July 31 date being fixed in the regulations made administration of this requirement challenging. With this revision, the CDFI Fund will have greater flexibility to schedule deadlines in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability relative to the application deadline therein.

G. Section 1805.701, Evaluation of Applications

Section 1805.701(b) has been revised to more accurately reflect the application and selection requirements of the Act as indicated at 12 U.S.C. 4704, 4705, and 4706.

H. Section 1805.801, Notice of Award

This section was removed as the CDFI Fund no longer uses Notices of Award (NOAs) that are separate from the Assistance Agreements.

I. Section 1805.803, Data Collection and Reporting

This section has been revised to accommodate the audit requirements of the Uniform Requirements.

Section 1805.803(e)(1)(i) has been revised to conform to the Uniform Requirements. Per the Uniform Requirements and the interim rule, all non-profit organizations that are required to have their financial statements audited pursuant to the Uniform Requirements, must submit their single-audits to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse no later than nine months after the end of the Recipient's fiscal year. Under this rule, as indicated in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability and Assistance Agreement, non-profit organizations that are not required to have their financial statements audited pursuant to the Uniform Requirements may still be subject to additional audit requirements.

Section 1805.803(e)(2)(A) has been revised and simplified to eliminate some outdated report form references in favor of a description of the report types to be collected from Recipients on an annual basis. Specific reporting requirements using OMB Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) approved information collections will be described in the applicable Notices of Funds Availability and Assistance Agreements.

IV. Rulemaking Analysis A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information contained in this interim rule have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned the applicable, approved OMB Control Numbers associated with the CDFI Fund under 1559. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. This document restates the collections of information without substantive change.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

This interim rule has been reviewed in accordance with the CDFI Fund's Environmental Quality regulations (12 CFR part 1815), promulgated pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires that the CDFI Fund adequately consider the cumulative impact proposed activities have upon the human environment. It is the determination of the CDFI Fund that the interim rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the NEPA and the CDFI Fund's Environmental Quality regulations (12 CFR 1815), neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

E. Administrative Procedure Act

Because the revisions to this interim rule relate to loans and grants, notice and public procedure and a delayed effective date are not required pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act found at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

F. Comment

Public comment is solicited on all aspects of this interim rule. The CDFI Fund will consider all comments made on the substance of this interim rule, but it does not intend to hold hearings.

G. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number

Community Development Financial Institutions Program—21.020.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1805

Community development, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 12 CFR part 1805 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1805—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM Sec. Subpart A—General Provisions 1805.100 Purpose. 1805.101 Summary. 1805.102 Relationship to other CDFI Fund programs. 1805.103 Recipient not instrumentality. 1805.104 Definitions. 1805.105 Uniform Requirements; Waiver authority. 1805.106 OMB control number. Subpart B—Eligibility 1805.200 Applicant eligibility. 1805.201 Certification as a Community Development Financial Institution. Subpart C—Use of Funds/Eligible Activities 1805.300 Purposes of financial assistance. 1805.301 Eligible activities. 1805.302 Restrictions on use of assistance. 1805.303 Technical assistance. Subpart D—Investment Instruments 1805.400 Investment instruments—general. 1805.401 Forms of investment instruments. 1805.402 Assistance limits. 1805.403 Authority to sell. Subpart E—Matching Funds Requirements 1805.500 Matching funds—general. 1805.501 Comparability of form and value. 1805.502 Severe constraints waiver. 1805.503 Time frame for raising match. 1805.504 Retained earnings. Subpart F—Applications for Assistance 1805.600 Notice of Funds Availability. Subpart G—Evaluation and Selection of Applications 1805.700 Evaluation and selection—general. 1805.701 Evaluation of applications. Subpart H—Terms and Conditions of Assistance 1805.800 Safety and soundness. 1805.801 Assistance Agreement; sanctions. 1805.802 Payment of funds. 1805.803 Data collection and reporting. 1805.804 Information. 1805.805 Compliance with government requirements. 1805.806 Conflict of interest requirements. 1805.807 Lobbying restrictions. 1805.808 Criminal provisions. 1805.809 CDFI Fund deemed not to control. 1805.810 Limitation on liability. 1805.811 Fraud, waste and abuse. Authority:

12 U.S.C. 4703, 4703 note, 4710, 4717; and 31 U.S.C. 321.

Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 1805.100 Purpose.

The purpose of the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program is to promote economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions.

§ 1805.101 Summary.

Through the Community Development Financial Institutions Program, the CDFI Fund provides financial and technical assistance to Recipients selected by the CDFI Fund in order to enhance their ability to provide Financial Products, Financial Services and Development Services to and in their Target Markets. Each Recipient must serve an Investment Area(s), a Targeted Population(s), or both. The CDFI Fund will select Recipients to receive financial or technical assistance through a merit-based, qualitative application process. Each Recipient must enter into an Assistance Agreement that requires it to achieve specific performance goals and abide by other terms and conditions pertinent to any assistance received under this part, as well as the Uniform Requirements, as applicable. All CDFI Program awards shall be made subject to funding availability.

§ 1805.102 Relationship to other CDFI Fund programs.

Restrictions on applying for, receiving, and using CDFI Program awards in conjunction with awards under other programs administered by the CDFI Fund (including, but not limited to, the Bank Enterprise Award Program, the Capital Magnet Fund, the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the New Markets Tax Credit Program) are as set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability, Notice of Guarantee Availability, or Notice of Allocation Availability.

§ 1805.103 Recipient not instrumentality.

No Recipient (or its Community Partner) shall be deemed to be an agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States.

§ 1805.104 Definitions.

For the purpose of this part, the following terms shall have the following definitions:

Act means the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et se.);

Affiliate means any company or entity that Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with another company;

Applicant means any entity submitting an application for CDFI Program assistance or funding under this part;

Appropriate Federal Banking Agency has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q)), and includes, with respect to Insured Credit Unions, the National Credit Union Administration;

Appropriate State Agency means an agency or instrumentality of a State that regulates and/or insures the member accounts of a State-Insured Credit Union;

Assistance Agreement means a formal agreement between the CDFI Fund and a Recipient, which agreement specifies the terms and conditions of assistance under this part;

Community Development Financial Institution (or CDFI) means an entity currently meeting the requirements described in § 1805.201;

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (or CDFI Fund) means the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund established pursuant to section 104(a) (12 U.S.C. 4703(a)) of the Act;

Community Development Financial Institution Intermediary (or CDFI Intermediary) means an entity that meets the CDFI Program eligibility requirements described in § 1805.200 and whose primary business activity is the provision of Financial Products to CDFIs and/or emerging CDFIs;

Community Development Financial Institutions Program (or CDFI Program) means the program authorized by sections 105-108 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 4704-4707) and implemented under this part;

Community Facility means a facility where health care, childcare, educational, cultural, or social services are provided;

Community-Governed means an entity in which the residents of an Investment Area(s) or members of a Targeted Population(s) represent greater than 50 percent of the governing body;

Community-Owned means an entity in which the residents of an Investment Area(s) or members of a Targeted Population(s) have an aggregate ownership interest of greater than 50 percent;

Community Partner means a person (other than an individual) that provides loans, Equity Investments, or Development Services and enters into a Community Partnership with an Applicant or a Recipient. A Community Partner may include a Depository Institution Holding Company, an Insured Depository Institution, an Insured Credit Union, a State-Insured Credit Union, a non-profit or for-profit organization, a State or local government entity, a quasi-government entity, or an investment company authorized pursuant to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661 et se.);

Community Partnership means an agreement between an Applicant or Recipient and a Community Partner to provide collaboratively Financial Products and/or Financial Services or Development Services to an Investment Area(s) or a Targeted Population(s);

Comprehensive Business Plan means a document, covering not less than the next five years, that demonstrates that the Applicant will be properly managed and will have the capacity to operate as a CDFI that will not be dependent upon assistance from the CDFI Fund for continued viability, and that meets the requirements described in an applicable Notice of Funds Availability;

Control or Controlling means:

(1) Ownership, control, or power to vote 25 percent or more of the outstanding shares of any class of Voting Securities of any company, directly or indirectly or acting through one or more other persons;

(2) Control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors, trustees, or general partners (or individuals exercising similar functions) of any company; or

(3) Power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence over the management, credit or investment decisions, or policies of any company.

Depository Institution Holding Company means a bank holding company or a savings and loan holding company as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(w)(1));

Development Services means activities undertaken by a CDFI, its Affiliate or contractor that promote community development and shall prepare or assist current or potential borrowers or investees to use the CDFI's Financial Products or Financial Services. For example, such activities include, financial or credit counseling; homeownership counseling; and business planning and management assistance;

Equity Investment means an investment made by a CDFI that, in the judgment of the CDFI Fund, supports or enhances activities serving the CDFI's Investment Area(s) or a Targeted Population(s). Such investments must be made through an arms-length transaction with a third party that does not have a relationship with the CDFI as an Affiliate. Equity Investments may comprise a stock purchase, a purchase of a partnership interest, a purchase of a limited liability company membership interest, a loan made on such terms that it has sufficient characteristics of equity (and is considered as such by the CDFI Fund); a purchase of secondary capital, or any other investment deemed by the CDFI Fund to be an Equity Investment;

Financial Products means loans, Equity Investments and similar financing activities (as determined by the CDFI Fund) including the purchase of loans originated by certified CDFIs and the provision of loan guarantees; in the case of CDFI Intermediaries, Financial Products may also include loans to CDFIs and/or emerging CDFIs and deposits in Insured Credit Union CDFIs, emerging Insured Credit Union CDFIs, and/or State-Insured Credit Union CDFIs;

Financial Services means providing checking, savings accounts, check cashing, money orders, certified checks, automated teller machines, deposit taking, safe deposit box services, and other similar services;

Indian Reservation means any geographic area that meets the requirements of section 4(10) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903(10)), and shall include: land held by incorporated Native groups, regional corporations, and village corporations, as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602); public domain Indian allotments; and former Indian reservations in the State of Oklahoma;

Indian Tribe means any Indian Tribe, band, pueblo, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation, as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et se.). Each such Indian Tribe must be recognized as eligible for special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians;

Insider means any director, officer, employee, principal shareholder (owning, individually or in combination with family members, five percent or more of any class of stock), or agent (or any family member or business partner of any of the above) of any Applicant, Subsidiary, Affiliate, or Community Partner;

Insured CDFI means a CDFI that is an Insured Depository Institution or an Insured Credit Union;

Insured Credit Union means any credit union, the member accounts of which are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund;

Insured Depository Institution means any bank or thrift, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

Investment Area means a geographic area meeting the requirements of § 1805.201(b)(3);

Low-Income means income, adjusted for family size, of not more than:

(1) For Metropolitan Areas, 80 percent of the area median family income; and

(2) For non-Metropolitan Areas, the greater of:

(i) 80 percent of the area median family income; or

(ii) 80 percent of the statewide non-Metropolitan Area median family income;

Metropolitan Area means an area designated as such by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(e) and 31 U.S.C. 1104(d) and Executive Order 10253 (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 758), as amended;

Non-Regulated CDFI means any entity meeting the eligibility requirements described in § 1805.200 and that is not a Depository Institution Holding Company, Insured Depository Institution, Insured Credit Union, or State-Insured Credit Union;

Nonvoting Securities or Nonvoting Shares. Preferred shares, limited partnership shares or interests, or similar interests are Nonvoting Securities if:

(1) Any voting rights associated with the shares or interest are limited solely to the type customarily provided by statute with regard to matters that would significantly and adversely affect the rights or preferences of the security or other interest, such as the issuance of additional amounts or classes of senior securities, the modification of the terms of the security or interest, the dissolution of the issuing company, or the payment of dividends by the issuing company when preferred dividends are in arrears:

(2) The shares or interest represent an essentially passive investment or financing device and do not otherwise provide the holder with control over the issuing company; and

(3) The shares or interest do not entitle the holder, by statute, charter, or in any manner, to select or to vote for the selection of directors, trustees, or partners (or persons exercising similar functions) of the issuing company.

Recipient means an Applicant selected by the CDFI Fund to receive assistance pursuant to this part;

State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands;

State-Insured Credit Union means any credit union that is regulated by, and/or the member accounts of which are insured by, a State agency or instrumentality;

Subsidiary means any company that is owned or Controlled directly or indirectly by another company and includes any service corporation owned in whole or part by an Insured Depository Institution or any Subsidiary of such a service corporation, except as provided in § 1805.200(b)(4);

Targeted Population means individuals or an identifiable group of individuals meeting the requirements of § 1805.201(b)(3);

Target Market means an Investment Area(s) and/or a Targeted Population(s);

Uniform Requirements means the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 1000), which is the Department of the Treasury's codification of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) government-wide framework for grants management at 2 CFR part 200;

Voting Securities means shares of common or preferred stock, general or limited partnership shares or interests, or similar interests if the shares or interest, by statute, charter, or in any manner, entitle the holder:

(1) To vote for or select directors, trustees, or partners (or persons exercising similar functions of the issuing company); or

(2) To vote on or to direct the conduct of the operations or other significant policies of the issuing company.

§ 1805.105 Uniform Requirements; Waiver authority.

(a) Uniform Requirements. The Uniform Requirements will be applied to all awards made pursuant to this part, as applicable.

(b) Waiver authority. The CDFI Fund may waive any requirement of this part that is not required by law upon a determination of good cause. Each such waiver shall be in writing and supported by a statement of the facts and the grounds forming the basis of the waiver. For a waiver in an individual case, the CDFI Fund must determine that application of the requirement to be waived would adversely affect the achievement of the purposes of the Act. For waivers of general applicability, the CDFI Fund will publish notification of granted waivers in the Federal Register.

§ 1805.106 OMB control number.

The collection of information requirements in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned applicable, approved OMB Control Numbers associated with the CDFI Fund under 1559.

Subpart B—Eligibility
§ 1805.200 Applicant eligibility.

(a) General requirements. (1) An entity that meets the requirements described in § 1805.201(b) and paragraph (b) of this section will be considered a CDFI and, subject to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, will be eligible to apply for assistance under this part.

(2)(i) An entity that proposes to become a CDFI is eligible to apply for assistance under this part if the CDFI Fund:

(A) Receives a complete application for certification from the entity within the time period set forth in an applicable Notice of Funds Availability; and

(B) Determines that such entity's application materials provide a realistic course of action to ensure that it will meet the requirements described in § 1805.201(b) and paragraph (b) of this section within the period set forth in an applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

(ii) The CDFI Fund will not, however, make a payment of any financial assistance to such an entity before or unless it meets the requirements described in this section. Moreover, notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to require an entity to have been certified as described in § 1805.201(a) prior to its submission of an application for assistance, as set forth in an applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

(3) The CDFI Fund shall require an entity to meet any additional eligibility requirements that the CDFI Fund deems appropriate.

(4) The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether an entity fulfills the requirements set forth in this section and § 1805.201(b).

(b) Provisions applicable to Depository Institution Holding Companies and Insured Depository Institutions. (1) A Depository Institution Holding Company may qualify as a CDFI only if it and its Affiliates collectively satisfy the requirements described in this section.

(2) No Affiliate of a Depository Institution Holding Company may qualify as a CDFI unless the holding company and all of its Affiliates collectively meet the requirements described in this section.

(3) No Subsidiary of an Insured Depository Institution may qualify as a CDFI if the Insured Depository Institution and its Subsidiaries do not collectively meet the requirements described in this section.

(4) For the purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, an entity will be considered to be a Subsidiary of any Insured Depository Institution or Depository Institution Holding Company that controls 25 percent or more of any class of the entity's voting shares, or otherwise controls, in any manner, the election of a majority of directors of the entity.

§ 1805.201 Certification as a Community Development Financial Institution.

(a) General. An entity may apply to the CDFI Fund for certification that it meets the CDFI eligibility requirements regardless of whether it is seeking financial or technical assistance from the CDFI Fund. Entities seeking such certification shall provide the information set forth in the application for certification. Certification by the CDFI Fund will verify that the entity meets the CDFI eligibility requirements. However, such certification shall not constitute an opinion by the CDFI Fund as to the financial viability of the CDFI or that the CDFI will be selected to receive an award from the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, shall have the right to decertify a certified entity after a determination that the eligibility requirements of paragraph (b) of this section or § 1805.200(b) are no longer met.

(b) Eligibility verification. An entity shall demonstrate whether it meets the eligibility requirements described in this paragraph (b) by providing the information described in the application for certification demonstrating that the entity meets the eligibility requirements described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether an entity has satisfied the requirements of this paragraph.

(1) Primary mission. A CDFI must have a primary mission of promoting community development. In determining whether an entity has such a primary mission, the CDFI Fund will consider whether the activities of the entity are purposefully directed toward improving the social and/or economic conditions of underserved people (which may include Low-Income persons or persons who lack adequate access to capital and/or Financial Services) and/or residents of economically distressed communities (which may include Investment Areas).

(2) Financing entity. (i) A CDFI shall be an entity whose predominant business activity is the provision, in arms-length transactions, of Financial Products and/or Financial Services. An entity may demonstrate that it meets this requirement if it is a(n):

(A) Depository Institution Holding Company;

(B) Insured Depository Institution, Insured Credit Union, or State-Insured Credit Union; or

(C) Organization that is deemed by the CDFI Fund to have such a predominant business activity as a result of analysis of its financial statements, organizing documents, and any other information required to be submitted as part of its certification application. In conducting such analysis, the CDFI Fund may take into consideration an entity's total assets and its use of personnel.

(ii) For the sole purpose of participating as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program (see 12 CFR1808), an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet the financing entity requirement of this section by relying on the CDFI Fund's determination that the Controlling CDFI has met said requirement; provided, however, that the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to set additional parameters and restrictions on such, which parameters and restrictions shall be set forth in the applicable Notice of Guarantee Availability for a CDFI Bond Guarantee Program application round.

(iii) Further, for the sole purpose of participating as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the provision of Financial Products, Development Services, and/or other similar financing by an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI need not be arms-length if such transaction is by and between the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI, pursuant to an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions and is in form and substance acceptable to the CDFI Fund.

(3) Target Market—(i) General. A CDFI must serve a Target Market by virtue of serving one or more Investment Areas and/or Targeted Populations. An entity may demonstrate that it meets this requirement by demonstrating that it provides Financial Products and/or Financial Services in an Investment Areas and/or Targeted Populations as described in this section. An Investment Area shall meet specific geographic and other criteria described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, and a Targeted Population shall meet the criteria described in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section.

(ii) Investment Area—(A) General. A geographic area will be considered eligible for designation as an Investment Area if it:

(1) Is entirely located within the geographic boundaries of the United States (which shall encompass any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands); and either

(2) Meets at least one of the objective criteria of economic distress as set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D) of this section and has significant unmet needs for loans, Equity Investments, Financial Products or Financial Services as described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E) of this section; or

(3) Encompasses (i.e., wholly consists of) or is wholly located within an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community designated under section 1391 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1391).

(B) Geographic units. Subject to the remainder of this paragraph (B), an Investment Area shall consist of a geographic unit that is a county (or equivalent area), minor civil division that is a unit of local government, incorporated place, census tract, or Indian Reservation. However, geographic units in Metropolitan Areas that are used to comprise an Investment Area shall be limited to census tracts, and Indian Reservations. An entity may designate one or more Investment Areas as part of a single certification application.

(C) Designation. An entity may designate an Investment Area by selecting:

(1) A geographic unit(s) that individually meets one of the criteria in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D) of this section; or

(2) A group of contiguous geographic units that together meet one of the criteria in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D) of this section, provided that the combined population residing within individual geographic units not meeting any such criteria does not exceed 15 percent of the total population of the entire Investment Area.

(D) Distress criteria. An Investment Area (or the units that comprise an area) must meet at least one of the following objective criteria of economic distress (as reported in the most recently completed decennial census published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census):

(1) The percentage of the population living in poverty is at least 20 percent;

(2) In the case of an Investment Area located:

(i) Within a Metropolitan Area, the median family income shall be at or below 80 percent of the Metropolitan Area median family income or the national Metropolitan Area median family income, whichever is greater; or

(ii) Outside of a Metropolitan Area, the median family income shall be at or below 80 percent of the statewide non-Metropolitan Area median family income or the national non-Metropolitan Area median family income, whichever is greater;

(3) The unemployment rate is at least 1.5 times the national average;

(4) In counties located outside of a Metropolitan Area, the county population loss during the period between the most recent decennial census and the previous decennial census is at least 10 percent; or

(5) In counties located outside of a Metropolitan Area, the county net migration loss during the five-year period preceding the most recent decennial census is at least five percent.

(E) Unmet needs. An Investment Area will be deemed to have significant unmet needs for loans or Equity Investments if a narrative analysis provided by the entity demonstrates a pattern of unmet needs for Financial Products or Financial Services within such area.

(F) Serving Investment Areas. An entity may serve an Investment Area directly or through borrowers or investees that serve the Investment Area.

(iii) Targeted Population—(A) General. Targeted Population shall mean individuals, or an identifiable group of individuals, who are Low-Income persons or lack adequate access to Financial Products or Financial Services in the entity's Target Market. The members of a Targeted Population shall reside within the boundaries of the United States (which shall encompass any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands).

(B) Serving Targeted Populations. An entity may serve the members of a Targeted Population directly or indirectly or through borrowers or investees that directly serve such members.

(4) Development Services. A CDFI directly, through an Affiliate, or through a contract with another provider, must have a track record of providing Development Services in conjunction with its Financial Products and/or Financial Services. An entity applying for CDFI certification must demonstrate that it meets this requirement.

(5) Accountability. A CDFI must maintain accountability to residents of its Investment Area(s) or Targeted Population(s) through representation on its governing board and/or advisory board(s). An entity applying for CDFI certification must demonstrate that it meets this requirement.

(6) Non-government. A CDFI shall not be an agency or instrumentality of the United States, or any State or political subdivision thereof. An entity applying for CDFI certification must demonstrate that it meets this requirement. An entity that is created by, or that receives substantial assistance from, one or more government entities may be a CDFI provided it is not Controlled by such entities and maintains independent decision-making power over its activities.

(c) Records and Review. The CDFI Fund will review a CDFI's certification status from time to time, as deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund, to ensure that it meets the certification requirements of this section, as well as review its organizational capacity, lending activity, community impacts, and such other information that the CDFI Fund deems appropriate. Upon request, a CDFI shall provide such information and documentation to the CDFI Fund as is necessary to undertake such review.

Subpart C—Use of Funds/Eligible Activities
§ 1805.300 Purposes of financial assistance.

The CDFI Fund may provide financial assistance through investment instruments described under subpart D of this part. Such financial assistance is intended to increase available capital and enhance the ability of a Recipient to provide Financial Products, Financial Services, and Development Services.

§ 1805.301 Eligible activities.

Recipients may use financial assistance provided under this part to serve Investment Area(s) or Targeted Population(s) by developing or supporting, through lending, investing, enhancing liquidity, or other means of finance:

(a) Commercial facilities that promote revitalization, community stability or job creation or retention;

(b) Businesses that:

(1) Provide jobs for Low-Income persons;

(2) Are owned by Low-Income persons; or

(3) Increase the availability of products and services to Low-Income persons;

(c) Community Facilities;

(d) The provision of Financial Services;

(e) Housing that is principally affordable to Low-Income persons, except that assistance used to facilitate homeownership shall only be used for services and lending products that serve Low-Income persons and that:

(1) Are not provided by other lenders in the area; or

(2) Complement the services and lending products provided by other lenders that serve the Investment Area(s) or Targeted Population(s);

(f) The provision of consumer loans (a loan to one or more individuals for household, family, or other personal expenditures); or

(g) Other businesses or activities as requested by the Applicant and deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund.

§ 1805.302 Restrictions on use of assistance.

(a) A Recipient shall use assistance provided by the CDFI Fund and its corresponding matching funds only for the eligible activities approved by the CDFI Fund and described in the Assistance Agreement.

(b) A Recipient may not distribute assistance to an Affiliate without the CDFI Fund's consent.

(c) Assistance provided upon approval of an application involving a Community Partnership shall only be distributed to the Recipient and shall not be used to fund any activities carried out by a Community Partner or an Affiliate of a Community Partner.

§ 1805.303 Technical assistance.

(a) General. The CDFI Fund may provide technical assistance to build the capacity of a CDFI or an entity that proposes to become a CDFI. Such technical assistance may include: training for management and other personnel; development of programs, products and services; improving financial management and internal operations; enhancing a CDFI's community impact; or other activities deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may provide technical assistance in amounts or under terms and conditions that are different from those requested by an Applicant or Recipient. The CDFI Fund may not provide any technical assistance funding to an Applicant for the purpose of assisting in the preparation of an application for federal assistance. The CDFI Fund may provide technical assistance to a CDFI directly, through grants, or by contracting with organizations that possess the appropriate expertise.

(b) The CDFI Fund may provide technical assistance regardless of whether the Recipient also receives financial assistance under this part. Technical assistance provided pursuant to this part is subject to the assistance limits described in § 1805.402.

(c) An Applicant seeking technical assistance must meet the eligibility requirements described in § 1805.200 and submit an application as described in § 1805.600.

(d) Applicants for technical assistance pursuant to this part will be evaluated pursuant to the merit-based qualitative review criteria in subpart G of this part, except as otherwise may be provided in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability. In addition, the requirements for matching funds are not applicable to technical assistance requests.

Subpart D—Investment Instruments
§ 1805.400 Investment instruments—general.

The CDFI Fund will provide financial assistance to a Recipient through one or more of the investment instruments described in § 1805.401, and under such terms and conditions as described in this subpart D. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may provide financial assistance in amounts, through investment instruments, or under rates, terms and conditions that are different from those requested by an Applicant.

§ 1805.401 Forms of investment instruments.

(a) Equity. The CDFI Fund may make non-voting equity investments in a Recipient, including, without limitation, the purchase of non-voting stock. Such stock shall be transferable and, in the discretion of the CDFI Fund, may provide for convertibility to voting stock upon transfer. The CDFI Fund shall not own more than 50 percent of the equity of a Recipient and shall not control its operations.

(b) Grants. The CDFI Fund may award grants.

(c) Loans. The CDFI Fund may make loans, if and as permitted by applicable law and regulation.

(d) Deposits and credit union shares. The CDFI Fund may make deposits (which shall include credit union shares) in Insured CDFIs and State-Insured Credit Unions. Deposits in an Insured CDFI or a State-Insured Credit Union shall not be subject to any requirement for collateral or security.

§ 1805.402 Assistance limits.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Fund may not provide, pursuant to this part, more than $5 million, in the aggregate, in financial and technical assistance to a Recipient and its Subsidiaries and Affiliates during any three-year period.

(b) Additional amounts. If a Recipient proposes to establish a new Subsidiary or Affiliate to serve an Investment Area(s) or Targeted Population(s) outside of any State, and outside of any Metropolitan Area, currently served by the Recipient or its Subsidiaries or Affiliates, the Recipient may receive additional assistance pursuant to this Part up to a maximum of $3.75 million during the same three-year period. Such additional assistance:

(1) Shall be used only to finance activities in the new or expanded Investment Area(s) or Targeted Population(s); and

(2) Must be distributed to a new Subsidiary or Affiliate that meets the eligibility requirements described in § 1805.200 and is selected for assistance pursuant to subpart G of this part.

(c) A Recipient may receive the assistance described in paragraph (b) of this section only if no other application to serve substantially the same Investment Area(s) or Targeted Population(s) that meets the requirements of § 1805.701(a) was submitted to the CDFI Fund prior to the receipt of the application of said Recipient and within the current funding round.

§ 1805.403 Authority to sell.

The CDFI Fund may, at any time, sell its equity investments and loans, provided the CDFI Fund shall retain the authority to enforce the provisions of the Assistance Agreement until the performance goals specified therein have been met.

Subpart E—Matching Funds Requirements
§ 1805.500 Matching funds—general.

All financial assistance awarded under this part shall be matched with funds from sources other than the Federal government. Except as provided in § 1805.502, such matching funds shall be provided on the basis of not less than one dollar for each dollar provided by the CDFI Fund. Funds that have been used to satisfy a legal requirement for obtaining funds under either the CDFI Program or another Federal grant or award program may not be used to satisfy the matching requirements described in this section. Community Development Block Grant Program and other funds provided pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), shall be considered Federal government funds and shall not be used to meet the matching requirements. Matching funds shall be used as provided in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability and/or the corresponding Assistance Agreement. Funds that are used prior to the execution of the Assistance Agreement may nevertheless qualify as matching funds provided they were used as provided in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability and/or Assistance Agreement.

§ 1805.501 Comparability of form and value.

(a) Matching funds shall be at least comparable in form (e.g., equity investments, deposits, credit union shares, loans and grants) and value to financial assistance provided by the CDFI Fund (except as provided in § 1805.502). The CDFI Fund shall have the discretion to determine whether matching funds pledged are comparable in form and value to the financial assistance requested.

(b) In the case of a Recipient that raises matching funds from more than one source, through different investment instruments, or under varying terms and conditions, the CDFI Fund may provide financial assistance in a manner that represents the combined characteristics of such instruments.

(c) A Recipient may meet all or part of its matching requirements by committing available earnings retained from its operations.

§ 1805.502 Severe constraints waiver.

(a) In the case of an Applicant with severe constraints on available sources of matching funds, the CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may permit such Applicant to comply with the matching requirements by:

(1) Reducing such requirements by up to 50 percent; or

(2) Permitting an Applicant to provide matching funds in a form to be determined at the discretion of the CDFI Fund, if such an Applicant:

(i) Has total assets of less than $100,000;

(ii) Serves an area that is not a Metropolitan Area; and

(iii) Is not requesting more than $25,000 in assistance.

(b) Not more than 25 percent of the total funds available for obligation under this part in any fiscal year may be matched as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) The terms of the severe constraints waiver shall be provided in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability and Assistance Agreement.

§ 1805.503 Time frame for raising match.

Applicants and Recipients shall satisfy matching funds requirements within the period set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability and/or the corresponding Assistance Agreement.

§ 1805.504 Retained earnings.

(a) General. An Applicant or Recipient may use its retained earnings to match a request for a financial assistance grant from the CDFI Fund. An Applicant or Recipient that proposes to meet all or a portion of its matching funds requirements by committing available retained earnings from its operations shall be subject to the restrictions described in this section. Retained earnings shall be calculated as directed by the CDFI Fund in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability, the financial assistance application, and/or related guidance materials. The CDFI Fund shall make the final determination of the eligible amount of retained earnings that an Applicant or Recipient has available as matching funds.

(b) Applicants other than Insured Credit Unions, State-Insured Credit Unions and Insured Depository Institutions. In the case of an Applicant or Recipient that is not an Insured Credit Union, State-Insured Credit Union or Insured Depository Institution, retained earnings that may be used for matching funds purposes shall consist of:

(1) The increase in retained earnings (meaning, for purposes of § 1805.504(b), revenue minus expenses less any dividend payments) that has occurred over the Applicant's or Recipient's fiscal year as set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability; or

(2) The annual average of such increases that occurred over the Applicant's or Recipient's three consecutive fiscal years as set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

(c) Insured Credit Unions, State-Insured Credit Unions, and Insured Depository Institutions. (1) In the case of an Applicant or Recipient that is an Insured Credit Union, State-Insured Credit Union or Insured Depository Institution, retained earnings that may be used for matching funds purposes shall consist of:

(i) The increase in retained earnings that has occurred over the Applicant's or Recipient's fiscal year as set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability;

(ii) The annual average of such increases that has occurred over the Applicant's or Recipient's three consecutive fiscal years as set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability; or

(iii) The entire retained earnings that have been accumulated since the inception of the Applicant or Recipient, provided that the Assistance Agreement shall require that:

(A) The Recipient shall increase its member shares, non-member shares, outstanding loans and/or other measurable activity as defined in and by an amount that is set forth in an applicable Notice of Funds Availability;

(B) Such increase must be achieved by a date certain set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability;

(C) The level from which the achievement of said increases will be measured will be as of the date set forth in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability; and

(D) Financial assistance shall be paid by the CDFI Fund only as the amount of increases described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section is achieved.

(2) The CDFI Fund will allow an Applicant or Recipient to utilize the option described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section for matching funds only if it determines, in its sole discretion, that the Applicant or Recipient will have a high probability of success in achieving said increases to the specified amounts.

Subpart F—Applications for Assistance
§ 1805.600 Notice of Funds Availability.

Each Applicant shall submit an application for financial or technical assistance under this part in accordance with the applicable Notice of Funds Availability published in the Federal Register. The Notice of Funds Availability will advise prospective Applicants on how to obtain an application packet and will establish deadlines and other requirements. The Notice of Funds Availability may specify the application scoring criteria and any limitations, special rules, procedures, and restrictions for a particular funding round. After receipt of an application, the CDFI Fund may request clarifying or technical information on the materials submitted as part of such application.

Subpart G—Evaluation and Selection of Applications
§ 1805.700 Evaluation and selection—general.

Applicants will be evaluated and selected, at the sole discretion of the CDFI Fund, to receive assistance based on a review process that may include an interview(s) and/or site visit(s) and that is intended to:

(a) Ensure that Applicants are evaluated on a merit basis and in a fair and consistent manner;

(b) Consider the unique characteristics of Applicants that vary by institution type, total asset size, stage of organizational development, markets served, products and services provided, and location;

(c) Ensure that each Recipient can successfully meet the goals of its Comprehensive Business Plan and achieve community development impact;

(d) Ensure that Recipients represent a geographically diverse group of Recipients serving Metropolitan Areas, non-Metropolitan Areas, and Indian Reservations from different regions of the United States; and

(e) Consider other factors as described in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

§ 1805.701 Evaluation of applications.

(a) Eligibility and completeness. An Applicant will not be eligible to receive assistance pursuant to this part if it fails to meet the eligibility requirements described in § 1805.200 or if it has not submitted complete application materials. For the purposes of this paragraph (a), the CDFI Fund reserves the right to request additional information from the Applicant, if the CDFI Fund deems it appropriate.

(b) Substantive review. In evaluating and selecting applications to receive assistance, the CDFI Fund will evaluate the feasibility of the Applicant's Comprehensive Business Plan goals, the likelihood of the Applicant meeting such goals, and the likelihood of the Applicant achieving its proposed community development impacts, by considering factors such as:

(1) Community development track record, including, in the case of an Applicant with a prior history of serving a Target Market, the extent of success in serving such Target Market and whether it will expand its operations into a new Investment Area or serve a new Targeted Population, offer more Development Services, Financial Products and/or Financial Services, or increase the volume of its current business;

(2) Operational capacity and risk mitigation strategies;

(3) Financial track record and strength;

(4) Capacity, skills, experience and background of the management team;

(5) Understanding of its market context, including an analysis of the needs of the Investment Area or Targeted Population and a strategy for how the Applicant will attempt to meet those needs; such analysis of current and prospective customers will include the extent of economic distress within the designated Investment Area(s) or the extent of need within the designated Targeted Population(s), as those factors are measured by objective criteria, the extent of need for Loans, Equity Investments, Financial Products, Financial Services and Development Services within the designated Target Market, and the extent of demand within the Target Market for the Applicant's products and services;

(6) Program design and implementation plan, including: A plan to coordinate use of a financial assistance award with existing Federal State, local and Tribal government assistance programs, and private sector financial services; A description of how the Applicant will coordinate with community organizations and financial institutions which will provide equity investments, loans, secondary markets, or other services to the Investment Area or Targeted Population; an assessment of its products and services, marketing and outreach efforts, delivery strategy, and coordination with other institutions and/or a Community Partner, or participation in a secondary market for purposes of increasing the Applicant's resources. In the case of an Applicant submitting an application with a Community Partner, the CDFI Fund will evaluate: the extent to which the Community Partner will participate in carrying out the activities of the Community Partnership; the extent to which the Community Partner will enhance the likelihood of success of the Comprehensive Business Plan; and the extent to which service to the designated Target Market will be better performed by a Community Partnership than by the Applicant alone;

(7) Projections for financial performance, capitalization and the raising of needed external resources, including a detailed description of the Applicant's plans and likely sources of funds to match the amount of financial assistance requested from the CDFI Fund, the amount of firm commitments and matching funds in hand to meet or exceed the matching funds requirements and, if applicable, the likely success of the plan for raising the balance of the matching funds in a timely manner, the extent to which the matching funds are, or will be, derived from private sources, and whether an Applicant is, or will become, an Insured CDFI or a State-Insured Credit Union;

(8) Projections for community development impact, including the extent to which an Applicant will concentrate its activities on serving its Target Market(s), the extent of support from the designated Target Market, the extent to which an Applicant is, or will be, Community-Owned or Community-Governed, and the extent to which the activities proposed in the Comprehensive Business Plan are consistent with existing economic, community, and housing development plans adopted by or applicable to the Investment Area or Targeted Population and will expand economic opportunities or promote community development within the designated Target Market;

(9) The extent of need for the CDFI Fund's assistance, as demonstrated by the extent of economic distress in the Applicant's Target Market and the extent to which the Applicant needs the CDFI Fund's assistance to carry out its Comprehensive Business Plan;

(10) In the case of an Applicant that has previously received assistance under the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund also will consider the Applicant's level of success in meeting its performance goals, financial soundness covenants (if applicable), and other requirements contained in the previously negotiated and executed Assistance Agreement(s) with the CDFI Fund, the unexpended balance of assistance, and whether the Applicant will, with additional assistance from the CDFI Fund, expand its operations into a new Target Market, offer more products or services, and/or increase the volume of its activities; and

(11) The CDFI Fund may consider any other factors, as it deems appropriate, in reviewing an application as set forth in an applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

(c) Consultation with Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies. The CDFI Fund will consult with, and consider the views of, the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency prior to providing assistance to:

(1) An Insured CDFI;

(2) A CDFI that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency; or

(3) A CDFI that has as its Community Partner an institution that is examined by, or subject to, the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency.

(d) Consultation with Appropriate State Agencies. Prior to providing assistance to a State-Insured Credit Union, the CDFI Fund may consult with, and consider the views of, the Appropriate State Agency.

(e) Recipient selection. The CDFI Fund will select Recipients based on the criteria described in paragraph (b) of this section and any other criteria set forth in this part or the applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

Subpart H—Terms and Conditions of Assistance
§ 1805.800 Safety and soundness.

(a) Regulated institutions. Nothing in this part, or in an Assistance Agreement, shall affect any authority of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency to supervise and regulate any institution or company.

(b) Non-Regulated CDFIs. The CDFI Fund will, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that Recipients that are Non-Regulated CDFIs are financially and managerially sound and maintain appropriate internal controls.

§ 1805.801 Assistance Agreement; sanctions.

(a) Prior to providing any Financial or Technical Assistance, the CDFI Fund and a Recipient shall execute an Assistance Agreement that requires a Recipient to comply with performance goals and abide by other terms and conditions of assistance. Such performance goals may be modified at any time by mutual consent of the CDFI Fund and a Recipient or as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. If a Community Partner or an Affiliate is part of an application that is selected for assistance, such partner must be a party to the Assistance Agreement, if deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund.

(b) A Recipient shall comply with performance goals that have been established or negotiated with the CDFI Fund and which are based upon the Comprehensive Business Plan submitted as part of the Recipient's application. Such performance goals may include measures that require a Recipient to:

(1) Be financially sound;

(2) Be managerially sound;

(3) Maintain appropriate internal controls; and/or

(4) Achieve specific lending, investment, and development service objectives.

Performance goals for Insured CDFIs shall be determined in consultation with the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, as applicable. Such goals shall be incorporated in, and enforced under, the Recipient's Assistance Agreement. Performance goals for State-Insured Credit Unions may be determined in consultation with the Appropriate State Agency, if deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund.

(c) The Assistance Agreement shall provide that, in the event of fraud, mismanagement, noncompliance with the Act and the CDFI Fund's regulations, or noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Assistance Agreement on the part of the Recipient (or the Community Partner, if applicable), the CDFI Fund, in its discretion, may:

(1) Require changes in the performance goals set forth in the Assistance Agreement;

(2) Require changes in the Recipient's Comprehensive Business Plan;

(3) Revoke approval of the Recipient's application;

(4) Reduce or terminate the Recipient's assistance;

(5) Require repayment of any assistance that has been distributed to the Recipient;

(6) Bar the Recipient from reapplying for any assistance from the CDFI Fund; or

(7) Take such other actions as the CDFI Fund deems appropriate.

(d) In the case of an Insured CDFI, the Assistance Agreement shall provide that the provisions of the Act, this part, and the Assistance Agreement shall be enforceable under 12 U.S.C. 1818 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, as applicable, and that any violation of such provisions shall be treated as a violation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Nothing in this paragraph (d) precludes the CDFI Fund from directly enforcing the Assistance Agreement as provided for under the terms of the Act.

(e) The CDFI Fund shall notify the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency before imposing any sanctions on an Insured CDFI or other institution that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of that agency. The CDFI Fund shall not impose a sanction described in paragraph (c) of this section if the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, in writing, and to the satisfaction of the CDFI Fund, not later than 30 calendar days after receiving notice from the CDFI Fund:

(1) Objects to the proposed sanction;

(2) Determines that the sanction would:

(i) Have a material adverse effect on the safety and soundness of the institution; or

(ii) Impede or interfere with an enforcement action against that institution by that agency;

(3) Proposes a comparable alternative action; and

(4) Specifically explains:

(i) The basis for the determination under paragraph (e)(2) of this section and, if appropriate, provides documentation to support the determination; and

(ii) How the alternative action suggested pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this section would be as effective as the sanction proposed by the CDFI Fund in securing compliance and deterring future noncompliance.

(f) In reviewing the performance of a Recipient in which its Investment Area(s) includes an Indian Reservation or Targeted Population(s) includes an Indian Tribe, the CDFI Fund shall consult with, and seek input from, the appropriate tribal government.

(g) Prior to imposing any sanctions pursuant to this section or an Assistance Agreement, the CDFI Fund shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide the Recipient (or the Community Partner, if applicable) with written notice of the proposed sanction and an opportunity to comment. Nothing in this section, however, shall provide a Recipient or Community Partner with the right to any formal or informal hearing or comparable proceeding not otherwise required by law.

§ 1805.802 Payment of funds.

Assistance provided pursuant to this part may be provided in a lump sum or over a period of time, as determined appropriate by the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund shall not provide any assistance under this part until a Recipient has satisfied any required conditions set forth in its Assistance Agreement and, if the Recipient is to receive financial assistance, the Recipient has secured in-hand and/or firm commitments for the matching funds required for such assistance pursuant to the applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

§ 1805.803 Data collection and reporting.

(a) Data—General. A Recipient shall maintain such records as may be prescribed by the CDFI Fund that are necessary to:

(1) Disclose the manner in which CDFI Fund assistance is used;

(2) Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this part and an Assistance Agreement; and

(3) Evaluate the impact of the CDFI Program.

(b) Customer profiles. A Recipient (and a Community Partner, if appropriate) shall compile such data on the gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, or other information on individuals that utilize its products and services as the CDFI Fund shall prescribe in an Assistance Agreement. Such data will be used to determine whether residents of Investment Area(s) or members of Targeted Population(s) are adequately served and to evaluate the impact of the CDFI Program.

(c) Access to records. A Recipient (and a Community Partner, if appropriate) must submit such financial and activity reports, records, statements, and documents at such times, in such forms, and accompanied by such reporting data, as required by the CDFI Fund or the Department of the Treasury to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part and to evaluate the impact of the CDFI Program. The United States Government, including the Department of the Treasury, the Comptroller General, and their duly authorized representatives, shall have full and free access to the Recipient's offices and facilities and all books, documents, records, and financial statements relating to use of Federal funds and may copy such documents as they deem appropriate. The CDFI Fund, if it deems appropriate, may prescribe access to record requirements for entities that are borrowers of, or that receive investments from a Recipient.

(d) Retention of records. A Recipient shall comply with all record retention requirements as set forth in the Uniform Requirements (as applicable).

(e) Data collection and reporting. Each Recipient shall submit to the CDFI Fund information and documentation that will permit the CDFI Fund to review the Recipient's progress (and the progress of its Affiliates, Subsidiaries, and/or Community Partners, if appropriate) in implementing its Comprehensive Business Plan and satisfying the terms and conditions of its Assistance Agreement. The information and documentation shall include, but not be limited to, an audit and an annual report, which shall comprise the following components:

(1) Audits and Audited Financial Statements. (i) All non-profit organizations that are required to have their financial statements audited pursuant to the Uniform Requirements, must submit their single-audits no later than nine months after the end of the Recipient's fiscal year. Non-profit organizations (excluding Insured CDFIs and State-Insured Credit Unions) that are not required to have financial statements audited pursuant to the Uniform Requirements, must submit to the CDFI Fund a statement signed by the Recipient's Authorized Representative or certified public accountant, asserting that the Recipient is not required to have a single audit pursuant to the Uniform Requirements as indicated in the Assistance Agreement. In such instances, the CDFI Fund may require additional audits to be performed as stated in the applicable Notice of Funds Availability.

(ii) For-profit organizations (excluding Insured CDFIs and State-Insured Credit Unions) must submit to the CDFI Fund financial statements audited in conformity with generally accepted auditing standards as promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, no later than six months after the end of the Recipient's fiscal year.

(iii) Insured CDFIs are not required to submit financial statements to the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund will obtain the necessary information from publicly available sources. State-Insured Credit Unions must submit to the CDFI Fund copies of the financial statements that they submit to the Appropriate State Agency.

(iv) If multiple for-profit organizations sign the Assistance Agreement: The Recipient may submit combined financial statements and footnotes for the Recipient and other entities that signed the Assistance Agreement as long as the financial statements of each signatory are shown separately (for example, in combining financial statements).

(2) Annual Report. (i) Each Recipient shall submit to the CDFI Fund a performance and financial report at the times that shall be specified in the Assistance Agreement (Annual Report). The Annual Report consists of several components which may include, but are not limited to, an institution level report, transaction level report, use of financial or technical assistance report, explanation of any Recipient noncompliance, and shareholder report. The Annual Report components shall be specified and described in the Assistance Agreement.

(ii) The CDFI Fund will use the Annual Report to collect data to assess the Recipient's compliance with its Performance Goals and the impact of the CDFI Program and the CDFI industry.

(iii) Recipients are responsible for the timely and complete submission of the Annual Report, even if all or a portion of the documents actually are completed by another entity or signatory to the Assistance Agreement. If such other entities or signatories are required to provide Annual Reports, or other documentation that the CDFI Fund may require, the Recipient is responsible for ensuring that the information is submitted timely and complete. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact such additional signatories to the Assistance Agreement and require that additional information and documentation be provided.

(3) The CDFI Fund's review of the progress of an Insured CDFI, a Depository Institution Holding Company or a State-Insured Credit Union in implementing its Comprehensive Business Plan and satisfying the terms and conditions of its Assistance Agreement may also include information from the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency, as the case may be.

(4) Public Access. The CDFI Fund shall make reports described in this section available for public inspection after deleting or redacting any materials necessary to protect privacy or proprietary interests.

(f) Exchange of information with Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies and Appropriate State Agencies. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, prior to directly requesting information from or imposing reporting or record keeping requirements on an Insured CDFI or other institution that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, the CDFI Fund shall consult with the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency to determine if the information requested is available from or may be obtained by such agency in the form, format, and detail required by the CDFI Fund.

(2) If the information, reports, or records requested by the CDFI Fund pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section are not provided by the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency within 15 calendar days after the date on which the material is requested, the CDFI Fund may request the information from or impose the record keeping or reporting requirements directly on such institutions with notice to the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency.

(3) The CDFI Fund shall use any information provided by an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency under this section to the extent practicable to eliminate duplicative requests for information and reports from, and record keeping by, an Insured CDFI, State-Insured Credit Union or other institution that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, the CDFI Fund may require an Insured CDFI, State-Insured Credit Union, or other institution that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency to provide information with respect to the institution's implementation of its Comprehensive Business Plan or compliance with the terms of its Assistance Agreement, after providing notice to the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency, as the case may be.

(5) Nothing in this part shall be construed to permit the CDFI Fund to require an Insured CDFI, State-Insured Credit Union, or other institution that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency to obtain, maintain, or furnish an examination report of any Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency, or records contained in or related to such report.

(6) The CDFI Fund and the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency shall promptly notify each other of material concerns about a Recipient that is an Insured CDFI or that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, and share appropriate information relating to such concerns.

(7) Neither the CDFI Fund nor the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency (or Appropriate State Agency, as the case may be) shall disclose confidential information obtained pursuant to this section from any party without the written consent of that party.

(8) The CDFI Fund, the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency (or Appropriate State Agency, as the case may be), and any other party providing information under this paragraph (f) shall not be deemed to have waived any privilege applicable to the any information or data, or any portion thereof, by providing such information or data to the other party or by permitting such data or information, or any copies or portions thereof, to be used by the other party.

§ 1805.804 Information.

The CDFI Fund and each Appropriate Federal Banking Agency shall cooperate and respond to requests from each other and from other Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies in a manner that ensures the safety and soundness of Insured CDFIs or other institution that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency.

§ 1805.805 Compliance with government requirements.

In carrying out its responsibilities pursuant to an Assistance Agreement, the Recipient shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, OMB Circulars, and Executive Orders. Furthermore, Recipients must comply with the CDFI Fund's Environmental Quality Regulations (12 CFR part 1815) as well as all other federal environmental requirements applicable to federal awards.

§ 1805.806 Conflict of interest requirements.

(a) Provision of credit to Insiders. (1) A Recipient that is a Non-Regulated CDFI may not use any monies provided to it by the CDFI Fund to make any credit (including loans and Equity Investments) available to an Insider, unless it meets the following restrictions:

(i) The credit must be provided pursuant to standard underwriting procedures, terms and conditions;

(ii) The Insider receiving the credit, and any family member or business partner thereof, shall not participate in any way in the decision making regarding such credit;

(iii) The board of directors or other governing body of the Recipient shall approve the extension of the credit; and

(iv) The credit must be provided in accordance with a policy regarding credit to Insiders that has been approved in advance by the CDFI Fund.

(2) A Recipient that is an Insured CDFI, a Depository Institution Holding Company or a State-Insured Credit Union shall comply with the restrictions on Insider activities and any comparable restrictions established by its Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency, as applicable.

(b) Recipient standards of conduct. A Recipient that is a Non-Regulated CDFI shall maintain a code or standards of conduct acceptable to the CDFI Fund that shall govern the performance of its Insiders engaged in the awarding and administration of any credit (including loans and Equity Investments) and contracts using monies from the CDFI Fund. No Insider of a Recipient shall solicit or accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from any actual or potential borrowers, owners, or contractors for such credit or contracts. Such policies shall provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violation of the standards by the Recipient's Insiders.

§ 1805.807 Lobbying restrictions.

No assistance made available under this part may be expended by a Recipient to pay any person to influence or attempt to influence any agency, elected official, officer or employee of a State or local government in connection with the making, award, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any State or local government contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement as such terms are defined in 31 U.S.C. 1352.

§ 1805.808 Criminal provisions.

The criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. 657 regarding embezzlement or misappropriation of funds are applicable to all Recipients and Insiders.

§ 1805.809 CDFI Fund deemed not to control.

The CDFI Fund shall not be deemed to Control a Recipient by reason of any assistance provided under the Act for the purpose of any applicable law.

§ 1805.810 Limitation on liability.

The liability of the CDFI Fund and the United States Government arising out of any assistance to a CDFI in accordance with this part shall be limited to the amount of the investment in the CDFI. The CDFI Fund shall be exempt from any assessments and other liabilities that may be imposed on controlling or principal shareholders by any Federal law or the law of any State. Nothing in this section shall affect the application of any Federal tax law.

§ 1805.811 Fraud, waste and abuse.

Any person who becomes aware of the existence or apparent existence of fraud, waste, or abuse of assistance provided under this part should report such incidences to the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Mary Ann Donovan, Director, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
[FR Doc. 2015-21227 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-70-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1623; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-10] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tracy, CA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, CA. After a review, and the decommissioning of the Manteca VHF omnidirectional radio range and distance measuring equipment (VOR/DME), the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area for the safety and management of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; Telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rob Riedl, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; Telephone: (425) 203-4534.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On June 23, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace at Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, CA (80 FR 35890) . Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth at Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, CA. Decommissioning of the Manteca VOR/DME and further review of the airspace has made this action necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 3.9-mile radius of Tracy Municipal Airport with segments extending from the 3.9-mile radius to 11 miles northwest, 6.4 miles east, and 9 miles southeast, of the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth AWP CA E5 Tracy, CA (Modified) Tracy Municipal Airport, CA (lat. 37°41′21″ N., long. 121°26′31″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.9-mile radius of Tracy Municipal Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 326° bearing from the airport extending from the 3.9-mile radius to 11 miles northwest of the airport, and that airspace 1.8 miles either side of the airport 132° bearing from the 3.9-mile radius to 9 miles southeast of the airport, and that airspace 2.2 miles either side of the airport 097° bearing from the 3.9-mile radius to 6 miles east of the airport.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 17, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-21414 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0246] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone—Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters in the Dutch Harbor area on July 15, 2015. The temporary safety zones will encompass the navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessels, and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of underway offshore exploration or support vessels. The purpose of the safety zones is to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Dutch Harbor, and the adjacent territorial sea due to additional vessel traffic associated with exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the summer of 2015.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from August 28, 2015 until August 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 15, 2015, until August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0246]. 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 temporary rule, call or email LT Eugene Chung, Sector Anchorage Prevention, Coast Guard; telephone 907-428-4189, 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 TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

On May 1, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones: Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK in the Federal Register (80 FR 24866). We received one comment on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. On July 10, 2015, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule (80 FR 39691) which lasted until July 15, 2015. The Coast Guard now believes it will be necessary to maintain the safety zones previous established until August 31, 2015.

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 as it would be impracticable, as immediate action is needed to minimize potential hazards to navigation posed by the presence of certain maritime traffic. The presence of large drilling vessels in the staging area was not anticipated by the Coast Guard beyond July 15 when the rulemaking activity began. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would present a safety risk to people and vessels in the vicinity of the staging area.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the reasons described above.

B. Basis and Purpose

Based on the expectation of increased maritime traffic primarily due to the anticipated arrival of approximately twenty eight (28) vessels affiliated with planned offshore drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, temporary safety zones needed to ensure the safe transit of vessels within the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and adjacent waters extending seaward to the limits of the territorial sea. The Coast Guard believes temporary safety zones are needed due to safety concerns for personnel aboard the support vessels, mariners operating other vessels in the vicinity of Dutch Harbor, and to protect the environment. The vessels and equipment anticipated to be staged within these safety zones, due to their size and technical complexity, pose a safety risk to vessels that attempt to navigate too closely to them. Limited rescue capabilities are available in the area. In an effort to mitigate the safety risks and any resulting environmental damage, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones within the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.

In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including, but not limited to: (1) The amount of commercial activity in and around the Port of Dutch Harbor; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessels; (3) sensitivity of the environment in the region and potential adverse affects caused by a grounding, allision, or collision; (4) the types and volume of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the Port of Dutch Harbor; and (5) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operations of support vessels. Vessels transiting in the vicinity of the safety zones could consist of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, tugs and tows, and recreational vessels. Any group or individual intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of offshore exploration support vessels must do so outside of the temporary safety zones.

Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the five criteria identified above, in conjunction with International Maritime Organization guidelines and existing regulations, warrant establishment of the temporary safety zones. A safety zone would significantly reduce the threat of collisions, allisions, or other incidents which could endanger the safety of all vessels operating on the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones that would surround the designated vessels while at anchor, moored or underway on the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea in order to mitigate the potential safety risks associated with the increased vessel traffic. The temporary safety zones will encompass the waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit.

Enforcing temporary safety zones for each offshore exploration or support vessel while they are on the navigable waters in the Port of Dutch Harbor or the adjacent territorial sea will help ensure the safety of all vessels, including the diverse commercial fleets of Dutch Harbor.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The safety zone will have negligible economic impact, as there will be ample room for navigation around it.

2. Impact on Small Entities

This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the port of Dutch Harbor because of the limited area affected and the limited duration of the rule. The safety zones are also designed to allow vessels transiting through the area to safely travel around the safety zones without incurring additional costs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), (5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule could affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through or anchor in within a portion of the Port of Dutch Harbor or adjacent waters, from June 15, 2015 to July 15, 2015.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: These safety zone restrictions are only effective from July 15, 2015 to August 31, 2015, and are limited only to waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support vessel is in transit. The Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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 calls for no 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 would 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 would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the rule involves establishing a safety zone, which is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this temporary final rule. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under Supporting Documents.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T17-0246 to read as follows:
§ . 165.T17-0246 Safety Zone; Port of Dutch Harbor; Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

(a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:

(1) All navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of a moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessel, or within a 100-yard radius of any underway offshore exploration or support vessel, located within the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters encompassed within the area from Cape Cheerful at 54-12.000 N 166-38.000 W north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea, and from Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea.

(b) Effective date. The temporary safety zones become effective at 12:01 a.m., July 15, 2015, and terminate on 11:59 p.m., August 31, 2015, unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.

(c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones contained in § 165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the area described in paragraph (a).

(1) If a non-exploration or support vessel is moored or anchored and an offshore exploration or support vessel transits near them such that it places the moored or anchored vessel within the 100-yard safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section, the moored or anchored vessel must remain stationary until the offshore exploration or support vessel maneuvers to a distance exceeding the 100-yard safety zone.

(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative, consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.

(3) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission prior to entering.

(4) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated on-scene representative.

(5) The COTP, Western Alaska, will notify the maritime and general public by marine information broadcast during the period of time that the safety zones are in force by providing notice in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

(d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

Dated: July 14, 2015. Paul Albertson, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2015-21017 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0509] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Incredoubleman Triathlon; Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY for a triathlon event. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Ontario during the swimming portion of the Incredoubleman Triathlon event. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect participants, spectators, mariners, and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a large scale swimming event.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on September 12, 2015 until 10 a.m. on September 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0509]. 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 LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9343, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

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

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

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

B. Basis and Purpose

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

Between 7 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015, a triathlon/swimming race will be held offshore of Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a large scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Incredboubleman Triathlon event. This zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015. This zone will encompass all areas on the waters of Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY within the following positions: 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W., then Northwest to 43°54′4.44″ N. and 076°7′43.89″ W., then Southwest to 43°53′57.19″ N. and 076°8′19.19″ W., then Southeast to 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W. (NAD 83).

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

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

2. Impact on Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Outer Harbor between 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 3 hours early in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0509 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0509 Safety Zone; Incredboubleman Triathlon; Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass a portion of the waters of Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY within the following positions: 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W., then Northwest to 43°54′4.44″ N. and 076°7′43.89″ W., then Southwest to 43°53′57.19″ N. and 076°8′19.19″ W., then Southeast to 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on September 12 and 13, 2015 from 7 a.m. until 10 a.m.

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

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

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

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

Dated: August 18, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-21522 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0530] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Sister Bay near Sister Bay, Wisconsin for the Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show. This zone will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. on September 5, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the ski show. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (f)(14), Table 165.929, from 1:30 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. on September 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show safety zone listed as item (f)(14) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of position 45°11.585′ N., 087°07.392′ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. on September 5, 2015.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

Dated: August 14, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-21523 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0530] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on the waters of Sister Bay in Sister Bay, WI for the Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks. This zone will be enforced from 8:15 p.m. until 10 p.m. on each day of September 5 and 6, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (f)(15), Table 165.929, from 8:15 p.m. until 10 p.m. on each day of September 5 and 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks safety zone listed as item (f)(15) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of the launch vessel in approximate position 45°11.585′ N., 087°07.392′ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 8:15 p.m. until 10 p.m. on each day of September 5 and 6, 2015.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

Dated: August 14, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-21524 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0657; FRL-9933-11—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Michigan State Board Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is taking final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission made by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) intended to meet the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA. The proposed rule associated with this final action was published on June 24, 2015.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on September 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0657. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra at (312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. What is the background for this action? II. What action is EPA taking? III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

Under section 128 of the CAA, each SIP must contain provisions that address two requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. To comply with this statutory provision, MDEQ submitted rules from the Civil Service Rule at 2-8.3(a)(1) for incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. EPA's June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking (see 80 FR 36306 at 36312) details how these rules satisfy the applicable requirements of section 128. EPA did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to approve Michigan's state board provisions.

II. What action is EPA taking?

For the reasons discussed in our June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve MDEQ's submissions addressing the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA. The specific rule that we are approving as satisfying these requirements is Civil Service Rule at 2-8.3(a)(1). It should be noted that our June 24, 2015, rulemaking contained proposed actions for various additional MDEQ submissions. This final rulemaking, however, is limited only to the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA.

III. Incorporation by Reference

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: August 19, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the section entitled “State Statutes” to read as follows:
§ 52.1170 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * State Statutes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Michigan Civil Service Commission Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) Disclosures 10/1/2013 8/31/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2015-21426 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0616; FRL-9931-35-Region-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to update the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP permitting program consistent with federal requirements. New Mexico submitted the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD SIP permitting revisions on July 26, 2013, and June 11, 2015, which includes a request for parallel processing of the submitted 2015 revisions. These submittals contain revisions to address the requirements of the EPA's May 2008, July 2010, and October 2012 PM2.5 PSD Implementation Rules and to incorporate revisions consistent with the EPA's March 2011 Fugitives Interim Rule, July 2011 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Biomass Deferral Rule, and July 2012 GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs Rule. The EPA finds that these revisions to the New Mexico SIP meet the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policies. We are taking this action under section 110 and part C of title I of the Act. The EPA is not approving these rules within the exterior boundaries of a reservation or other areas within any Tribal Nation's jurisdiction.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on September 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0616. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ashley Mohr, 214-665-7289, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background

The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our May 20, 2015 proposal (80 FR 28901). In that notice, we proposed to approve portions of SIP submittals for the State of New Mexico submitted on July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, that contained revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program. The March 4, 2015 submittal included a request for parallel processing of the submitted 2015 revisions, meaning that the EPA proposed approval of a rule that was not yet finalized at the local level. Our May 20, 2015 proposed approval and accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) provided the EPA's evaluation of the March 4, 2015 revisions to the New Mexico SIP. We preliminarily determined that the revisions were consistent with the CAA and the EPA's regulations and guidance. As such, we proposed approval of the SIP revisions contained in the March 4, 2015 submittal.

Under the EPA's “parallel processing” procedure, the EPA proposes a rulemaking action on proposed SIP revisions concurrently with the State or Local Agency's public review process. If the proposed SIP revision is not significantly or substantively changed, the EPA will finalize the rulemaking on the SIP revision as proposed after responding to any submitted comments. Final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after the final SIP revision has been fully adopted by the State or Local Agency and submitted formally to the EPA for approval as a SIP revision. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

The City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County completed their rulemaking process, and the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board adopted revisions to the PSD program on April 30, 2015. These adopted changes were submitted as a revision to the New Mexico SIP on June 11, 2015. The EPA has evaluated the final SIP revision submittal for any changes made from the time of proposal. See “Addendum to the TSD” for EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0616, available in the rulemaking docket. Our evaluation indicates that adopted changes to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program are the same as the revisions that we proposed to approve; and therefore, do not alter our rationale presented in the May 20, 2015 proposed approval. As such, the EPA is proceeding with our final approval of the revisions to the New Mexico SIP, consistent with the parallel processing provisions in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

This action to approve the aforementioned revisions to the New Mexico SIP is being taken under section 110 of the Act. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

II. Final Action

The EPA is approving revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program that were submitted by New Mexico as a SIP revision on July 26, 2013, and June 11, 2015. We are approving the portions of the July 26, 2013, and June 11, 2015 submittals that revised the following sections under 20.11.61:

• 20.11.61.2 NMAC—Scope,

• 20.11.61.5 NMAC—Effective Date,

• 20.11.61.6 NMAC—Objective,

• 20.11.61.7 NMAC—Definitions,

• 20.11.61.10 NMAC—Documents,

• 20.11.61.11 NMAC—Applicability,

• 20.11.61.12 NMAC—Obligations of Owners or Operators of Sources,

• 20.11.61.14 NMAC—Control Technology Review and Innovative Control Technology,

• 20.11.61.15 NMAC—Ambient Impact Requirements,

• 20.11.61.18 NMAC—Air Quality Analysis and Monitoring Requirements,

• 20.11.61.20 NMAC—Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs),

• 20.11.61.23 NMAC—Exclusions from Increment Consumption,

• 20.11.61.24 NMAC—Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas—Additional Requirements,

• 20.11.61.27 NMAC—Table 2—Significant Emission Rates,

• 20.11.61.29 NMAC—Table 4—Allowable PSD Increments, and

• 20.11.61.30 NMAC—Table 5—Maximum Allowable Increases for Class I Variances.

The EPA has determined that these revisions to the New Mexico SIP's Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program are approvable because the submitted rules are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and are consistent with the EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting. The EPA is taking this action under section 110 and part C of the Act.

The EPA is severing from our final approval action the revisions to 20.11.60 NMAC submitted on July 26, 2013, which are revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County NNSR Program and will be addressed in a separate action.

III. Incorporation by Reference

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: August 17, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart GG—New Mexico 2. In § 52.1620(c) the second table titled “EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations” is amended by revising the entry for “Part 61 (20.11.61)” to read as follows:
§ 52.1620 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations State citation Title/subject State approval/effective date EPA approval date Explanation New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection, Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part 61 (20.11.61 NMAC) Prevention of Significant Deterioration 5/29/2015 8/31/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2015-21015 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531; FRL-9932-26] Dimethomorph; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes, and removes tolerances for residues of dimethomorph in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR 180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d).

DATES:

This regulation is effective August 31, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 30, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 30, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8281) by BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.493 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, dimethomorph in or on strawberry at 1.0 parts per million (ppm) and removing the established tolerances for lettuce, head and lettuce, leaf at 10 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the tolerance for residues of dimethomorph in or strawberry to 0.90 ppm and is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR 180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d) to the following introductory tolerance expression text: 40 CFR 180.493(a): Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity. 40 CFR 180.493(c): Tolerances with regional registrations are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity. 40 CFR 180.493(d): Tolerances are established for the indirect or inadvertent residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The target organ for dimethomorph is the liver in rats and dogs. No biologically significant effect was observed in the rat subchronic oral toxicity study while decreased body weight and increased incidence of arteritis in male rats and decreased body weights and increased incidence of “ground-glass” foci in livers of female rats were observed in the rat chronic toxicity study. In the dog subchronic oral toxicity study, decreased absolute and relative prostate weights, and slight liver effects were observed. No toxicity was observed at the limit dose in the rat 28-day dermal toxicity study. The developmental toxicity studies showed no increased sensitivity to offspring of either rats or rabbits as demonstrated by the no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) equal to or higher than those producing toxicity in the maternal animals. Likewise, in the 2-generation reproduction study, there was no toxicity to the offspring at any dose lower than that causing parental toxicity. There is no evidence that dimethomorph is a developmental, or reproductive toxicant, and it is not neurotoxic or immunotoxic.

The Agency classified dimethomorph as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice and no evidence of mutagenicity. A quantitative cancer risk assessment is not necessary. Dimethomorph has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route of exposure (Toxicity Category III or IV). It is not an eye or skin irritant, and is not a skin sensitizer.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by dimethomorph as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Dimethomorph: Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Establishment of a Permanent Tolerance for Residues in/on Strawberry” at pages 29-32 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dimethomorph used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dimethomorph for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years of age) N/A (No appropriate endpoint was identified including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.) N/A N/A. Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF/UFL = 10x
  • Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/day
  • Acute neurotoxicity study in rats.
  • MRID 48980106.
  • LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on reduced motor activity and impairment of gait and rearing in both sexes.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) POD = 11 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.11 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD= 0.11 mg/kg/day
  • Co-critical chronic and carcinogenicity studies in rats MRID 42233912, 42233916.
  • LOAEL = 46.3 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight and increases in liver lesions in female rats.
  • Incidental oral short-term NOAEL= 15 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic feeding study in dogs.
  • MRID 42233908.
  • LOAEL = 43 mg/kg/day based on decreased absolute and relative prostate weights.
  • Dermal short- and intermediate-term N/A (No toxicity was observed at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study
  • No quantitative risk assessment is necessary since no dermal or developmental toxicity concern.)
  • N/A N/A.
    Inhalation short- and intermediate-term Oral, NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption factor = 100%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • UFDB = 10x
  • LOC for MOE = 1000 Subchronic feeding study in dogs.
  • MRID 42233908.
  • LOAEL = 43 mg/kg/day based on decreased absolute and relative prostate weights.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: This chemical is classified as “not likely” to be a human carcinogen. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to dimethomorph, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing dimethomorph tolerances in 40 CFR 180.493. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dimethomorph in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for dimethomorph. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WEIA) 2003-2008. The acute analysis assumed 100% crop treated (CT), Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16 default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all foods. Drinking water was incorporated directly into the dietary assessment using the surface water concentration and the FIRST (Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir Screening Tool) model.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WEIA 2003-2008. The chronic analysis assumed 100% CT, DEEM-FCID Version 3.16 default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all foods. Drinking water was incorporated directly into the dietary assessment using the surface water concentration and the FIRST model.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that dimethomorph does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use any anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for dimethomorph.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for dimethomorph in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of dimethomorph. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on FIRST model for surface water and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) for ground water, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of dimethomorph for acute exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 81.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 20.1 ppb for ground water; and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 24.7 ppb for surface water and 18.8 ppb (post breakthrough avg. ppb) and 14.6 ppb (simulation avg. ppb) for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of 81.1 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of 24.7 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Dimethomorph is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicology data on dimethomorph provides no indication of enhanced sensitivity of infants and children based on the results from rat or rabbit developmental studies as well as a 2-generation rat reproduction study.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined the 10X FQPA SF be retained for acute dietary exposure scenario for extrapolation of a NOAEL from a LOAEL. For other exposure scenarios, the FQPA SF is reduced to 1x since there is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young and exposure estimates are unlikely to underestimate risk.

    The above decision is based on the following findings:

    i. Although the toxicity database of dimethomorph is incomplete because a subchronic inhalation study is not available, the available toxicity database of dimethomorph, including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, a 2-generation reproduction study in rats, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, is adequate to characterize developmental and reproductive effects and to assess the qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young.

    ii. In an acute neurotoxicity study, functional observational battery (FOB) findings and reduced motor activity were observed at ≥ 250 mg/kg on day 0 only. These findings were considered an impairment of the overall condition of the animals following a single gavage dose, rather than a direct neurotoxic effect of dimethomorph based on the absence of any neurohistopathological changes in the treated animals and the transient nature of the observed FOB and neurobehavioral assessments. In support of this conclusion, no neurotoxic effects were observed in rats fed dimethomorph up to the highest dose tested at 2,400 ppm (178/204 mg/kg/day for males/females, respectively) in a 90-day neurotoxicity study. Additionally, the toxicology database does not reveal evidence of neurotoxic clinical signs, changes in brain weight, or histopathology of the nervous system in any study with dimethomorph.

    iii. There is no evidence that dimethomorph results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to dimethomorph in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dimethomorph.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to dimethomorph will occupy 39% of the aPAD for children 3 to 5 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to dimethomorph from food and water will utilize 26% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for dimethomorph.

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

    A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, dimethomorph is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for dimethomorph.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, dimethomorph is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for dimethomorph.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. An aggregate cancer risk was not calculated because dimethomorph was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) method FAMS 002-04 and Method M 2577, a gas chromatographic (GC) method with nitrogen phosphorus detection (NPD)) are available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has established MRLs for dimethomorph in or on strawberry at 0.05 ppm. These MRLs are different than the tolerances established for dimethomorph in the United States. EPA is not proposing to harmonize the U.S. tolerance for residues in strawberry with the Codex due to different application rates (U.S. application rate, 219-237 gram active ingredient/hectare, and Codex countries' application rate, 150 gram active ingredient/hectare).

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    BASF proposed a tolerance of dimethomorph residues on strawberry at 1.0 ppm. BASF and EPA used the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) spreadsheet calculator and both determined from the data set that a tolerance of 0.90 ppm was the recommended OECD calculator spreadsheet output. However, BASF rounded that value to 1.0 ppm, while EPA's policy is to establish the tolerance at the OECD calculator output level without rounding; therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance on strawberry at 0.90 ppm. EPA established the tolerance for leafy vegetables (except brassica) crop group 4 in the Federal Register on May 4, 2012 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0388. In this ruling, the tolerance for vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 was established at 30.0 ppm. According to 40 CFR 180.493, the individual tolerances for lettuce, head and lettuce, leaf, both at 10.0 ppm, were not removed. Based upon the previous explanation, EPA is removing the tolerances for lettuce, head at 10.0 ppm and lettuce, leaf at 10.0 ppm.

    EPA is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR 180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d). The CAS name of dimethomorph is currently incorrect (currently is listed as the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) name (E,Z)-4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl) acryloyl]morpholine, and is being revised to the correct CAS name 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine)).

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide, dimethomorph in or on strawberry at 0.90 ppm and removing the established tolerances for lettuce, head and lettuce leaf at 10 ppm. EPA is correcting the CAS name of dimethomorph in 40 CFR 180.493(a), 40 CFR 180.493(c), and 40 CFR 180.493(d) to the following tolerance expressions:

    40 CFR 180.493(a): Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

    40 CFR 180.493(c): Tolerances with regional registrations are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

    40 CFR 180.493(d): Tolerances are established for the indirect or inadvertent residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.493: a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a). b. Remove the entries in the table in paragraph (a) for “Lettuce, head”, and “Lettuce leaf”. c. Add alphabetically the entry for “Strawberry” to the table in paragraph (a). d. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c) and (d).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.493 Dimethomorph; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodities.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Strawberry 0.90 *    *    *    *    *

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with regional registrations are established for residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established for the indirect or inadvertent residues of the fungicide dimethomorph, 4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl]morpholine, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined by measuring only dimethomorph in or on the commodity.

    [FR Doc. 2015-21192 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2 and 5 [ET Docket Nos. 10-236, 06-155; FCC 15-76] Radio Experimentation and Market Trials AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of “emergency notification providers” to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.

    DATES:

    Effective September 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2452, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-2989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion & Order (MO&O), ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, FCC 15-76, adopted July 6, 2015, and released July 8, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Summary of Memorandum Opinion and Order

    1. In the Report and Order (R&O) in this proceeding, 78 FR 25138, April 29, 2013, the Commission updated its part 5 ERS rules to add options that provide additional flexibility to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change, and an environment where creativity can thrive. Specifically, the Commission added three new types of ERS licenses to supplement the existing conventional ERS license: the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license. The Commission also modified its market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate its policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification, including establishing a subpart for product development and market trials.

    2. In this MO&O, the Commission responds to petitions for reconsideration of the R&O filed by Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC (Marcus); Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic); and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (Sirius XM) and EchoStar Technologies, Inc. (EchoStar).

    Marcus Petition

    3. In its petition, Marcus asks that the Commission reconsider a modified provision in § 5.85(a) of the Commission's rules that prohibits all experimental licensees from using bands exclusively allocated to the passive services. Marcus notes that, while the modified rule was proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding (76 FR 6928, February 8, 2011) and adopted in the rules appendix of the R&O, it is inconsistent with both the text of the R&O and existing policy under which conventional experimental licensees have been allowed to operate in bands allocated to the passive services. Marcus argues that there are legitimate reasons for short-term conventional experiments in some of the bands allocated for passive use. Specifically, Marcus argues that testing new concepts in modulation, high bandwidth, or other technical details in a given non-passive band that might be appropriate as a future home for a new service can be very expensive if that testing requires custom-made equipment. Marcus maintains that there is a valid reason to verify the new technical concepts in a band in which equipment is much less expensive, even though long-term use of that band might not be possible. Therefore, Marcus recommends new language for § 5.85(a) that would prohibit experimental use of the passive bands by the new types of ERS licensees and in product development and market trials, while also specifying that any conventional experimental licensee proposing use of the passive bands for an experiment must include a justification of why non-passive bands are inadequate for that experiment. The Boeing Company (Boeing) and Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) support grant of the Marcus Petition, and no commenting parties objects.

    4. As Marcus observes, § 5.85(a) of the rules is inconsistent with both the Commission's existing treatment of conventional ERS licenses and the text of the R&O. This inconsistency arose in the NPRM, where the text proposed that only program licenses would be prohibited from using “restricted” bands (including passive service bands) listed in § 15.205(a) of the Commission's rules. In contrast, § 5.85(a) of the rules proposed that all experimental use of “any frequency or frequency band exclusively allocated to the passive services” be prohibited. This inconsistency was not addressed by any commenting party, but the Commission's stated intent in the text of the R&O was to continue previous practice regarding conventional ERS licenses. In addition, the Commission observes that the R&O stated: “Due to the nature of the compliance testing process, the Commission will not impose on them most of the limitations and reporting requirements that it will impose on program licenses. Specifically, because compliance testing often involves emission measurements in restricted bands, compliance testing licensees will be exempt from the prohibition on operating in the restricted bands listed in § 15.205(a) of the rules and from operating in the bands allocated exclusively to the passive services.” Thus, the Commission modifies § 5.85(a) to permit conventional and compliance testing licensees to operate on passive bands.

    5. In making these modifications to § 5.85(a), the Commission observes that a number of conventional experiments have operated in passive service bands without causing harmful interference to passive services, and the Commission concurs with Marcus, Boeing, and Battelle that such conventional experimental use should be permitted to continue under some circumstances. The Commission observes that in those instances in which an experimental applicant had requested use of a passive band, OET staff in coordination with NTIA undertook a case-by-case review of the application and imposed specific conditions on the applicant, as warranted, to minimize the potential that the experiment would cause harmful interference to passive service(s) that use that band. The Commission therefore finds generally appropriate Marcus's recommended new language for § 5.85(a) that would continue to permit conventional ERS use of the passive bands under limited circumstances, and further modifies the language to also permit compliance testing licensees to use those bands.

    Medtronic Petition

    6. A medical testing experimental radio license (medical testing license) is issued to hospitals and health care institutions that demonstrate expertise in testing and operation of experimental medical devices that use wireless telecommunications technology or communications functions in clinical trials for diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring. These licenses are for testing medical devices that would operate under existing rules and use radio frequency (RF) wireless technology for diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring for the purposes of, but not limited to, assessing patient compatibility and usage issues, as well as operational, interference, and RF immunity issues. Unlike a conventional experimental license, a medical testing license would allow a health care institution to conduct a wide variety of unrelated clinical trials under a single authorization. The Commission will grant authorizations for a geographic area that is inclusive of an institution's real-property facilities where the experimentation will be conducted and that is under the applicant's control. Applications also may specify, and the Commission will grant authorizations for, defined geographic areas beyond the institution's real-property facilities that will be included in clinical trials and monitored by the licensee.

    7. Medtronic's petition raises two issues, which the Commission addresses in turn. First, Medtronic asks that the Commission expand the eligibility for the medical testing license. The second issue pertains to cost reimbursement for clinical trials, which is permitted under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules. Medtronic requests that the Commission clarify that such reimbursement does not constitute impermissible marketing under §§ 2.803 or 2.805 of its rules. Medtronic asserts that these changes could greatly facilitate clinical trials because the devices would not need to have first been approved by the Commission under its equipment authorization program. No party filed comments regarding any of the issues raised by Medtronic's petition.

    8. Medical testing license eligibility. Medtronic observes that the R&O established this license to meet the needs of the medical community and to allow medical researchers to conduct clinical trials, but limited eligibility for medical testing licenses to health care facilities. Medtronic notes that FDA rules permit a wide range of entities, including non-health care facilities, to sponsor or conduct clinical trial testing. In particular, Medtronic notes that the FDA classifies certain entities involved in medical device research as either “sponsors” or “sponsor-investigators” of clinical trials, with those terms defined as follows:

    Sponsor—A person who initiates, but who does not actually conduct, the investigation, that is, the investigational device is administered, dispensed, or used under the immediate direction of another individual. A person other than an individual that uses one or more of its own employees to conduct an investigation that it has initiated is a sponsor, not a sponsor-investigator, and the employees are investigators.

    Sponsor-investigator—An individual who both initiates and actually conducts, alone or with others, an investigation, that is, under whose immediate direction the investigational device is administered, dispensed, or used. The term does not include any person other than an individual. The obligations of a sponsor-investigator under this part include those of an investigator and those of a sponsor.

    9. Medtronic observes that under these FDA classifications, a wide-range of entities, including device manufacturers, act as sponsors and sponsor-investigators of clinical trials and engage in real-world patient testing, but that these entities do not always meet the more limited definition of a “health care facility” under the Commission's rules. Thus, Medtronic argues, a “significant portion” of these entities are not eligible to apply for a medical testing license. These entities, it claims, will be subject to testing limitations and added costs and burdens by having to design their tests to comply with the Commission's other experimental authorization rules (or not be able to conduct them in a manner that provides the most utility for device evaluation purposes). Medtronic asserts that the Commission's licensing structure is inconsistent with FDA regulations that permit a wider variety of entities to sponsor or conduct clinical trial testing, and creates regulatory uncertainty, does not meet the development and testing needs of the medical community, and threatens to frustrate the very innovation that this proceeding is intended to promote. Medtronic also asserts that the new program experimental license (program license) is inappropriate for medical testing because that license does not unreservedly cover clinical trials. Medtronic therefore recommends that the Commission extend the eligibility for medical testing licenses to FDA sponsors and sponsor-investigators of clinical trials involving the testing and operation of new medical devices.

    10. Medtronic argues that expanding the eligibility to device manufacturers would level the playing field under the rules since the line between device manufacturers and health care facilities is blurring as healthcare providers are among those who develop medical devices. More specifically, given this overlap between the two with respect to their involvement in developing such devices, Medtronic argues that the following two disparities in regulatory treatment unfairly skew the playing field: (1) Medical testing licensees can operate on frequency bands restricted under § 15.205(a) if the device being tested complies with rules in part 18, part 95, Subpart H (Wireless Medical Telemetry Service), or part 95, Subpart I (Medical Device Radiocommunication Service), but program and conventional experimental licensees cannot; and (2) medical testing licensees can conduct clinical trials outside the physical facilities under their control, but program licensees cannot.

    11. The Commission addresses separately in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released simultaneously with this MO&O, whether it should permit program licensees to experiment on frequency bands restricted under § 15.205(a), if the device being tested is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18 (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment), part 95 (Personal Radio Services), Subpart H (Wireless Medical Telemetry Service), or part 95, Subpart I (Medical Device Radiocommunication Service).

    12. After careful consideration, the Commission finds good reason to deny Medtronic's request. In the R&O, the Commission recognized the importance of its experimental licensing program to the development of RF-based medical devices, and its rules provide a variety of authorizations under which medical device experimentation and clinical trials can be conducted, including program licenses, conventional licenses for market trials, and medical testing licenses. The Commission limited the eligibility and scope of a medical testing license to hospitals and health care institutions to address their particular needs in conducting multiple clinical trials, both within their institutions and at defined geographic areas beyond their facilities that will be monitored by the licensee. This license allows a health care institution to assess patient compatibility and use, as well as operational, interference, and RF immunity issues in real use settings. To accomplish this objective, the medical testing license has elements similar to program licenses and to market trial licenses. As with program licenses, a medical testing licensee can conduct multiple unrelated experiments at its own facility that is under its control. As with market trials, the medical testing licensee can request permission to conduct clinical trials at other specified locations that it monitors. The Commission envisions, for example, that a medical testing license would be helpful to those health care institutions when RF-based medical devices used in clinical trials would be operated primarily within the institution by hospital staff who can observe how those devices perform in the presence of other RF equipment. In the R&O, the Commission recognized that, although a health care facility could oversee a clinical trial beyond its facility, it may not want to assume this responsibility in some cases and instead may prefer that the device manufacturer or health practitioner, under a conventional or market trial license, assume responsibility for clinical trials outside the health care facility.

    13. The Commission concludes that if it were to expand eligibility for a medical testing licensee to align with the FDA's regulations, it would undermine the Commission's ability to meet its own objectives. Each agency's rules are designed to satisfy different purposes. The Commission's primary concern in authorizing experimentation with RF devices is to ensure that the devices do not cause harmful interference to authorized users of the spectrum and that the devices do not enter into commerce prior to Commission certification. A part 5 licensee is the party that the Commission holds responsible for the proper operation of the experimental RF devices to avoid harmful interference to authorized spectrum users and to take corrective action as necessary. A part 5 license also specifies the locations for experimentation, e.g., a conventional license would specify the locations where the licensee is conducting experimentation, and a program license limits operation to locations directly under the licensee's control. The FDA's Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) rules cited by Medtronic are designed for a different purpose—to determine the safety or effectiveness of a medical device. To accomplish this objective, the FDA's regulations allow for different categories of participation in clinical trials (e.g., sponsors who initiate, investigators who conduct trials, and sponsor-investigators who take on both roles). A sponsor does not necessarily conduct the investigation, and thus would not be directly responsible for the operation of the experimental RF-based devices as intended by the Commission's part 5 rules. Numerous investigators may conduct the clinical trials, often at a variety of locations which are not required to be, and most likely are not, under the sponsor's control. The Commission is concerned that allowing an FDA sponsor or sponsor-investigator to hold a medical testing experimental license would create confusion in determining who is responsible for the proper operation of the experimental RF devices to avoid harmful interference to other spectrum users and to take corrective action as necessary. Also, trials may be conducted by multiple investigators who are not licensees at many different locations that would not be under the licensee's control. This would be contrary to the basic principles underlying the experimental licensing program. The Commission emphasizes that any health care facility that wishes to be eligible for grant of a medical testing license must meet all eligibility requirements contained in its rules, including the requisite RF expertise.

    14. The Commission finds it better serves the public interest to maintain the structure that it adopted, wherein a medical testing license is available only to a qualified health care facility that is solely responsible for clinical trials within its institution. The key element here is that the licensee controls the facility—and hence the interference environment—where multiple clinical trials are being conducted. The medical testing license is designed to address the particular needs of health care institutions in conducting multiple clinical trials within its institution under real use conditions, whether the RF-based medical devices being tested are manufactured by themselves or other manufacturers. To expand eligibility for this license to any manufacturer of medical devices, the Commission would have to identify the real-property facilities that they control and where clinical trials would be conducted. It seems unlikely that a manufacturer would conduct clinical trials at its manufacturing facility if this does not provide real use conditions. Moreover, Medtronic does not ask to conduct clinical trials at its own facilities but rather to conduct such trials at multiple other locations as approved under FDA rules on a trial-by-trial basis. This is fundamentally different than how the medical testing license is intended to operate.

    15. In declining to modify the rules as requested by Medtronic, the Commission notes that the part 5 rules provide other options for conducting clinical trials that other entities, such as sponsors, investigators and medical device manufacturers, can use. First, entities may evaluate product performance of an experimental wireless medical device under a market trial by obtaining a conventional experimental license. Typically, market trials are conducted prior to the production stage to evaluate product performance and customer acceptability under expected use conditions. As with medical testing licenses, market trials are authorized for devices that are designed to comply with existing Commission rules. However, unlike a regular conventional experimental license, a market trial license can be used to conduct clinical trials in locations not under the licensee's direct control, such as at a patient's home. Second, for instances where a party is developing a device that would not be able to be operated in compliance with existing rules, the Commission envisioned that such devices can be tested under a conventional experimental license. In summary, manufacturers of medical devices, whether associated with a health care facility or not, would have similar opportunities for experimenting with such devices even though they may do so under different types of authorizations. Both health care institutions that qualify for a medical testing license and device manufacturers that do not must obtain either a program or conventional experimental license to conduct basic research and experimentation. Device manufacturers that do not qualify for a medical testing license would need to obtain a market trial license to conduct clinical trials, which provides more flexibility than a medical testing license for specifying the area(s) within which the trial will be conducted. Health care facilities that qualify for a medical testing license could conduct clinical trials under either a medical testing license or a market trial license. Under the medical testing license, the licensee is limited to areas close to the licensee's own facility, and if it wants to conduct a clinical trial in a location not specified in its license, it would do so under a market trial license.

    16. Also, as acknowledged by Medtronic, the Commission may declare a specific geographic area an innovation zone for the purpose of conducting a clinical trial. Such a declaration, which could be made on the Commission's own motion or in response to a public request—such as from a health care facility lacking the RF expertise necessary for obtaining a medical testing licensee—would permit the Commission to designate a defined geographic area and frequency range(s) for specific types of experiments by program licensees within guidelines that the Commission may establish on a case-by-case basis. These innovation zones can include geographic areas beyond a program licensee's authorized area without the licensee having to apply for a new license to cover a new location. Thus, they can serve to effectively extend a program license without the licensee being required to modify its license to cover a new location. Accordingly, innovation zones will provide opportunities for program licensees, including FDA sponsors and sponsor-investigators, to test potentially innovative wireless devices in real world operating environments, such as testing medical devices in health care institutions. In the R&O, the Commission stated that this approach “may be particularly useful for manufacturers who want to test medical or other types of equipment that will be used in a health care setting while it is in the product development stage, but who will not be eligible for the medical testing license. A manufacturer of medical devices would be able to continue its product testing for clinical trials under its program license at a designated innovation zone without having to apply for a separate market trial license.”

    17. As the Commission concluded in the R&O, the different licensing options represent a multi-faceted approach to facilitate robust medical RF experimentation that responds to the record developed in this proceeding. The medical testing experimental license complements the types of medical RF experimentation that parties will be able to conduct under a conventional, program, or market trial experimental license. Accordingly, the Commission discovered that limiting eligibility for a medical testing license to hospitals and health care facilities is not detrimental to medical innovation and product development. The Commission's goal in this proceeding is to facilitate bringing ground-breaking new technologies and services to consumers more rapidly, and it finds that its current rules provide the proper incentives toward achieving that goal to both FDA-approved sponsors/sponsor-investigators and to health care facilities. Accordingly, the Commission denies Medtronic's request to expand the eligibility for the medical testing license at this time. As licensees take advantage of the new flexible licenses, the Commission will gain valuable insight as to whether it could modify the rules in the future without sacrificing its objective of ensuring that each clinical trial is conducted in a way that minimizes the potential for harmful interference to authorized services.

    18. Cost reimbursement for clinical trials. The second issue raised by Medtronic pertains to cost reimbursement for clinical trials of experimental medical devices. Medtronic explains that, while manufacturers of medical devices are not permitted by the FDA to profit from clinical trials, they are allowed to recover certain manufacturing, research, development and handling costs associated with FDA-defined “investigational devices.” Medtronic further states that the FDA typically allows sponsors to charge investigators for such devices, and that the costs are usually passed on to the clinical trial subjects. The FDA rules permit a sponsor or investigator to charge subjects for an investigational device, but those entities may not commercialize that device by charging a price larger than that necessary to recover the costs of manufacture, research, development, and handling. Medtronic requests that the Commission clarify that such reimbursement does not constitute impermissible marketing under §§ 2.803 or 2.805 of its rules. Medtronic argues that the requested clarification will ensure consistency between the regulatory regimes of the Commission and the FDA, simplify manufacturers' compliance, and encourage medical device testing and innovation. Medtronic maintains that the purposes of FDA's cost recovery mechanism align with the Commission's marketing restrictions, and that permitting cost recovery in clinical trials will encourage medical device research and development that will ultimately benefit consumers.

    19. The Commission's rules generally prohibit the operation and marketing of RF products prior to equipment authorization except under certain specified conditions. § 2.805 (“Operation of radio frequency devices prior to equipment authorization”) lists conditions under which RF devices may be operated prior to equipment authorization, including operation under an experimental radio license issued under part 5 of the rules, and states that an RF device that may be operated prior to equipment authorization “may not be marketed (as defined in § 2.803(a)) except as provided elsewhere in this chapter.” § 2.803 (“Marketing of radio frequency products prior to equipment authorization”) defines marketing as “sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.” These restrictions on marketing are intended to prevent the unchecked dissemination of experimental devices into the stream of commerce, where they may not always be easily recalled. The Commission concludes here that accepting reimbursement payments under the FDA's rules for the use of an unauthorized RF device in a clinical trial falls within this definition of “marketing.” However, § 2.803 includes a number of exceptions to the general prohibition against marketing unauthorized equipment. One of those exceptions is for market trials conducted under a part 5 experimental license. Accordingly, and, as explained below, the Commission clarifies that the marketing advocated by Medtronic is permitted on a limited basis under the § 2.803 exception for market trials conducted by part 5 experimental licensees.

    20. In the R&O, the Commission modified its part 5 rules to provide more flexibility for market trials, including some forms of cost recovery, while continuing to provide safeguards to protect the public. Section 5.602 (“Market Trials”) permits marketing of devices (as defined in § 2.803) and provision of services for hire prior to equipment authorization, provided that the devices included in the market trial are authorized under this rule section and will be operated under the current rules; could be authorized under waivers of such rules that are in effect at the time of marketing; or could be authorized under rules that have been adopted by the Commission, but that have not yet become effective. The rule stipulates that the experimental licensee must own all transmitting and/or receiving equipment, but also permits the experimental licensee to: (1) Sell equipment to other licensees (e.g. manufacturer to licensed service provider), and (2) lease equipment to trial participants for purposes of the study. Equipment must be retrieved or rendered inoperable after the trial.

    21. The Commission finds that, for devices that necessitate an experimental license for the conduct of a clinical trial, the market trial rule allows for some cost recovery for investigational devices used in those trials consistent with the Commission's purpose to prevent the unchecked dissemination of experimental devices into the stream of commerce. While the Commission's market trial rules differ from the FDA rules, they do provide manufacturers of experimental medical devices a mechanism for offsetting costs associated with the development of those devices. For example, FDA rules allow sponsors to charge investigators for medical devices and these costs may be passed on to the clinical trial participants, and a part 5 market trial licensee may sell devices to another licensee (e.g., a health care facility that is a medical testing licensee) or lease medical devices to trial participants, which may permit full or partial cost recovery. The Commission believes that this structure generally accommodates Medtronic's request, and serves the public interest by providing medical device manufacturers an incentive to develop innovative, but potentially costly, devices for use in clinical trials.

    22. The Commission also observes that not all clinical trials occur under part 5 experimental rules. The Commission's experience has been that clinical trials, especially those involving implanted devices which cannot be easily returned to the licensee as the rules require, occur after the FCC has issued an equipment authorization grant for the device. In those cases, there is no FCC marketing restriction that conflicts with FDA rules.

    23. The Commission also clarifies that a medical testing licensee conducting clinical trials that wants to seek reimbursement under the FDA's rules should follow the requirements for market trials in § 5.602. In establishing the medical testing license, the Commission observed that the license will allow for “clinical trials of medical devices that have already passed through the early developmental stage and are ready to be assessed for patient compatibility and use, as well as operational, interference, and RF immunity issues in real world situations.” This is conceptually analogous to a market trial, which “com[es] later in the development process” and is a “program designed to evaluate product performance and customer acceptability prior to the production stage.” Also, both medical testing licenses and market trials licenses are used for devices that will be operated under the current rules; could be authorized under waivers of such rules that are in effect at the time of marketing; or could be authorized under rules that have been adopted by the Commission, but that have not yet become effective. In the R&O the Commission stated that it would require a market trial to be authorized under a conventional, rather than a program, license “in recognition of the inherent difference between market trials and `regular' experimentation and testing—the most prominent difference being the necessity to prevent an experimental licensee from creating a de facto service through the experimental licensing process.” As discussed above, clinical trials are analogous to market trials, and should be treated like market trials for cost recovery purposes by the experimental license rules. Accordingly, the Commission modifies § 5.402 to make clear that medical testing licensees may recover their costs to the extent they are permitted by the market trial rule.

    24. The Commission also clarifies that, under a conventional license issued for a product development trial, a licensee conducting a clinical trial could not be reimbursed for its costs, and the Commission takes this opportunity to correct a contradiction in its current rules regarding product development trials. Although § 2.803 exempts product development trials from the marketing rule for equipment operated prior to certification, the product development trial rule (§ 5.601) expressly prohibits marketing of devices as defined in § 2.803 or the provision of services for hire. This prohibition in the rule is consistent with the Commission's statement in the R&O that licensees conducting a product development trial must not market devices or offer services for hire. The Commission differentiated product development trials, which occur very early in the development process, from market trials for marketing purposes. Market trials, which occur later in the development process, can engage in marketing activity if they use equipment that could be operated under the current rules; could be authorized under waivers of such rules that are in effect at the time of marketing; or could be authorized under rules that have been adopted by the Commission, but that have not yet become effective. Product development trials have no such restrictions and thus restricting marketing is important to prevent the unchecked dissemination of experimental devices into the stream of commerce. Clearly, the Commission's intent was to prohibit marketing for product development trials and erred in its drafting of the marketing exceptions in § 2.803. Accordingly, the Commission herein corrects § 2.803(c)(1) to refer only to market trials and remove the reference to product development trials. Thus, the Commission notes that reimbursement under the FDA's rules for clinical trials would not be permitted for a product development trial.

    25. Thus, the Commission concludes that Medtronic's requests are best accommodated under the existing rules. To the extent that cost recovery for medical devices used in clinical trials is done under the market trial rules set forth in § 5.602, the Commission grants Medtronic's request and clarifies that such cost recovery does not constitute impermissible marketing under §§ 2.803 and 2.805 of its rules.

    Sirius XM and EchoStar Petition

    26. In their petition, Sirius XM and EchoStar request that the Commission add a definition of “emergency notifications” to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System are emergency notification providers, and are therefore entitled to notification of program experiments that might affect them, as well as protection from harmful interference that such experiments might cause to them. The R&O specified that for program license experiments that may affect critical service bands (i.e. bands used for the provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes), the program licensee must take the additional steps of developing a specific plan to avoid causing harmful interference to operations in those bands prior to commencing operations and providing notice to those critical service licensees who might be affected by the planned experiment.

    27. Sirius XM and EchoStar observe that the NPRM explicitly recognized that EAS participants provide emergency notifications, and that the R&O required that any program licensee seeking to undertake an experiment in a band used for emergency notifications must develop a plan to avoid interference to emergency notification providers, but that the R&O failed to specify that such providers include all EAS participants. Sirius XM and EchoStar contend that this failure will create confusion on the part of program license applicants and undermine the Commission's goal of avoiding interference threats to the EAS network. Therefore, to avoid the possibility that program licensees may fail to notify EAS participants of their planned experiments or cause harmful interference to EAS participants, Sirius XM and EchoStar recommend that the Commission set forth a definition of emergency notification providers that includes all EAS participants. No party filed comments regarding the Sirius XM/EchoStar Petition.

    28. The Commission's goal throughout this proceeding has been to foster new experimental uses of the RF spectrum, while protecting authorized radio services from any harmful interference that these new uses might cause. Moreover, the Commission has recognized that an additional measure of protection must be afforded to bands used by services that are crucial to the public safety and well-being. The Commission's clear intent in this proceeding has been to include all EAS participants as emergency notification providers. For example, the Commission included this discussion in the NPRM: “. . . Television and radio broadcast bands are used in support of the Emergency Alert System (EAS). In recognition of these vital interests, the Commission proposes to require that, for tests that affect bands use for the provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes on the institution's grounds, the licensee first develop a specific plan that avoids interference to these bands.” As Sirius XM and EchoStar observe, the R&O adopted the NPRM's proposal that the program licensee must develop a specific plan to avoid harmful interference to operations in these critical service bands, but failed to explicitly state that emergency notification providers include all EAS participants. Accordingly, and to avoid any confusion, the Commission is adding to § 5.5 of the rules a definition of emergency notification providers as inclusive of all EAS participants.

    29. Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The Commission hereby certifies that the rule revisions set forth herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) The modification of § 5.85(a) essentially restores that rule to what existed prior to initiation of this proceeding, but with the further modification that permits use of passive service bands by compliance testing licensees, as was explicitly authorized in the R&O. As explained above, the prohibitions adopted in the rules appendix of the R&O was over-inclusive—the stated intent in this proceeding was to prohibit experimental use of the passive bands only by program and medical testing licensees and in product development and market trials. Restoring the rule to allow for the grant of conventional experimental licenses that use the passive bands, which had been permitted for many years prior to adoption of the R&O, as well as permitting use of these bands by new compliance testing licensees, will not have an adverse impact on any small entities. (2) Denying FDA sponsors and sponsor-investigators eligibility for medical testing licenses in § 5.402 of the Commission's rules will not adversely impact small entities, as they will still have the ability to conduct clinical medical trials under the auspices of a product development trial, or under a program license in cases in which the Commission establishes an innovation zone for a clinical trial. (3) Clarifying that some cost reimbursement for medical devices used in clinical trials is permissible under the § 5.602 market trial rules may benefit some small entities, without adversely impacting any such entities. (4) Clarifying in § 5.5 of the rules that all participants in the Emergency Alert System are emergency notification providers simply codifies what was adopted in the R&O, and will not adversely impact any small entities. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including this certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    30. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains no new or modified information collection requirement that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    31. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Ordering Clauses

    32. Pursuant to section 4(i), 301, 303 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303, and 405 and § 1.1, 1.2, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.2, and 1.429, this Memorandum Opinion and Order is adopted.

    33. The petitions for reconsideration filed by Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC; Medtronic, Inc.; and Sirius XM Radio Inc. and EchoStar Technologies Inc. Are granted, to the extent indicated above, and otherwise are denied.

    34. Parts 2 and 5 of the Commission's rules are amended, as set forth in the Final Rules. These revisions will be effective September 30, 2015 of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

    List of Subject in 47 CFR Part 5

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 5 as follows:

    PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 2.803 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.803 Marketing of radio frequency devices prior to equipment authorization.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Activities under market trials conducted pursuant to subpart H of part 5.

    PART 5—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE 3. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 4, 302, 303, 307, 336 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 307, 336. Interpret or apply sec. 301, 48 Stat. 1081, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 301.

    4. Section 5.5 is amended by adding a definition in alphabetical for “emergency notification providers” to read as follows:
    § 5.5 Definition of terms.

    Emergency notification providers. All participants in the Emergency Alert System, as identified in section 11.1 of this chapter.

    5. Section 5.85 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 5.85 Frequencies and policy governing their assignment.

    (a)(1) Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service may be authorized to use any Federal or non-Federal frequency designated in the Table of Frequency Allocations set forth in part 2 of this chapter, provided that the need for the frequency requested is fully justified by the applicant. Stations authorized under Subparts E and F are subject to additional restrictions.

    (2) Applications to use any frequency or frequency band exclusively allocated to the passive services (including the radio astronomy service) must include an explicit justification of why nearby bands that have non-passive allocations are not adequate for the experiment. Such applications must also state that the applicant acknowledges that long term or multiple location use of passive bands is not possible and that the applicant intends to transition any long-term use to a band with appropriate allocations.

    6. Section 5.402 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 5.402 Eligibility and usage.

    (c) Marketing of devices (as defined in § 2.803(a) of this chapter) is permitted under this license as provided in § 5.602.

    [FR Doc. 2015-21295 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 141009847-5746-02] RIN 0648-XD558 Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final specifications.

    SUMMARY:

    In this final rule, NMFS specifies the 2015 annual catch limits (ACLs) for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries, and accountability measures (AMs) to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The ACLs and AMs support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

    DATES:

    The final specifications are effective September 30, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the fishery ecosystem plans are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or www.wpcouncil.org. Copies of the environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact for this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0156, are available from www.regulations.gov, or from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS is specifying the 2015 ACLs and AMs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fishery management unit species (MUS) in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii. NMFS proposed these specifications on July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43046), and the final specifications do not differ from those proposed. The 2015 fishing year began on January 1 and ends on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, for which the fishing year began on July 1, 2015, and ends on June 30, 2016.

    NMFS is not specifying ACLs for MUS that are currently subject to Federal fishing moratoria or prohibitions. These MUS include all species of gold coral, the three Hawaii seamount groundfish (pelagic armorhead, alfonsin, and raftfish), and deepwater precious corals at the Westpac Bed Refugia. The current prohibitions on fishing for these MUS serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero.

    Additionally, NMFS is not specifying ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS identified in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) FEP. This is because fishing is prohibited in the EEZ within 12 nm of emergent land of the PRIA, unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in consultation with NMFS and the Council. Additionally, there is no suitable habitat for these stocks beyond the 12-nm no-fishing zone, except at Kingman Reef, where fishing for these resources does not occur. To date, the USFWS has not consulted with NMFS for any fishing that the USFWS may authorize within 12 nm of the PRIA. NMFS will continue to monitor authorized fishing within 12 nm of the PRIA in consultation with the USFWS, and may develop additional fishing requirements, including catch limits for species that may require them.

    NMFS is also not specifying ACLs for pelagic MUS at this time, because NMFS previously determined that pelagic species are subject to international fishery agreements or have a life cycle of approximately 1 year and are, therefore, statutorily excepted from the ACL requirements.

    2015 Annual Catch Limit Specifications

    Tables 1-4 list the ACL specifications for 2015.

    Table 1—American Samoa Fishery Management unit species ACL
  • Specification
  • (lb)
  • Bottomfish Bottomfish multi-species stock complex 101,000 Crustacean Deepwater shrimp 80,000 Spiny lobster 4,845 Slipper lobster 30 Kona crab 3,200 Precious Coral Black coral 790 Precious corals in the American Samoa Exploratory Area 2,205 Coral Reef Ecosystem Selar crumenophthalmus—atule, bigeye scad 37,400 Acanthuridae—surgeonfish 129,400 Carangidae—jacks 19,900 Carcharhinidae—reef sharks 1,615 Crustaceans—crabs 4,300 Holocentridae—squirrelfish 15,100 Kyphosidae—rudderfishes 2,000 Labridae—wrasses 16,200 Lethrinidae—emperors 19,600 Lutjanidae—snappers 63,100 Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams 18,400 Mugilidae—mullets 4,600 Mullidae—goatfishes 11,900 Scaridae—parrotfish 272,000 Serranidae—groupers 25,300 Siganidae—rabbitfishes 200 Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish 235 Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse 1,743 All other CREMUS combined 18,400
    Table 2—Mariana Archipelago—Guam Fishery Management unit species ACL
  • Specification
  • (lb)
  • Bottomfish Bottomfish multi-species stock complex 66,800 Crustaceans Deepwater shrimp 48,488 Spiny lobster 3,135 Slipper lobster 20 Kona crab 1,900 Precious Coral Black coral 700 Precious corals in the Guam Exploratory Area 2,205 Coral Reef Ecosystem Selar crumenophthalmus—atulai, bigeye scad 50,200 Acanthuridae—surgeonfish 97,600 Carangidae—jacks 29,300 Carcharhinidae—reef sharks 1,900 Crustaceans—crabs 7,300 Holocentridae—squirrelfish 11,400 Kyphosidae—chubs/rudderfish 9,600 Labridae—wrasses 25,200 Lethrinidae—emperors 53,000 Lutjanidae—snappers 18,000 Mollusks—octopus 23,800 Mugilidae—mullets 17,900 Mullidae—goatfish 15,300 Scaridae—parrotfish 71,600 Serranidae—groupers 22,500 Siganidae—rabbitfish 18,600 Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish 797 Cheilinus undulatus—humphead (Napoleon) wrasse 1,960 All other CREMUS combined 185,000 (CNMI and Guam combined)
    Table 3—Mariana Archipelago—CNMI Fishery Management unit species ACL
  • Specification
  • (lb)
  • Bottomfish Bottomfish multi-species stock complex 228,000 Crustacean Deepwater shrimp 275,570 Spiny lobster 7,410 Slipper lobster 60 Kona crab 6,300 Precious Coral Black coral 2,100 Precious corals in the CNMI Exploratory Area 2,205 Coral Reef Ecosystem Selar crumenophthalmus—Atulai, bigeye scad 77,400 Acanthuridae—surgeonfish 302,600 Carangidae—jacks 44,900 Carcharhinidae—reef sharks 5,600 Crustaceans—crabs 4,400 Holocentridae—squirrelfishes 66,100 Kyphosidae—rudderfishes 22,700 Labridae—wrasses 55,100 Lethrinidae—emperors 53,700 Lutjanidae—snappers 190,400 Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams 9,800 Mugilidae—mullets 4,500 Mullidae—goatfish 28,400 Scaridae—parrotfish 144,000 Serranidae—groupers 86,900 Siganidae—rabbitfish 10,200 Bolbometopon muricatum—Bumphead parrotfish 797 Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse 2,009 All other CREMUS combined 7,300 (CNMI and Guam combined)
    Table 4—Hawaii Fishery Management unit species ACL
  • Specification
  • (lb)
  • Bottomfish Non-Deep 7 bottomfish 178,000 Crustacean Deepwater shrimp 250,773 Spiny lobster 15,000 Slipper lobster 280 Kona crab 27,600 Precious Coral Auau Channel black coral 5,512 Makapuu Bed—Pink coral 2,205 Makapuu Bed—Bamboo coral 551 180 Fathom Bank—Pink coral 489 180 Fathom Bank—Bamboo coral 123 Brooks Bank—Pink coral 979 Brooks Bank—Bamboo coral 245 Kaena Point Bed—Pink coral 148 Kaena Point Bed—Bamboo coral 37 Keahole Bed—Pink coral 148 Keahole Bed—Bamboo coral 37 Precious corals in the Hawaii Exploratory Area 2,205 Coral Reef Ecosystem Selar crumenophthalmus—akule, bigeye scad 988,000 Decapterus macarellus—opelu, mackerel scad 438,000 Acanthuridae—surgeonfishes 342,000 Carangidae—jacks 161,200 Carcharhinidae—reef sharks 9,310 Crustaceans—crabs 33,500 Holocentridae—squirrelfishes 148,000 Kyphosidae—rudderfishes 105,000 Labridae—wrasses 205,000 Lethrinidae—emperors 35,500 Lutjanidae—snappers 330,300 Mollusks—octopus 35,700 Mugilidae—mullets 19,200 Mullidae—goatfishes 165,000 Scaridae—parrotfishes 239,000 Serranidae—groupers 128,400 All other CREMUS combined 485,000
    Accountability Measures

    Federal logbook and reporting from fisheries in Federal waters is not sufficient to monitor and track catches towards the proposed ACL specifications accurately. This is because most fishing for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem MUS occurs in state waters, generally 0-3 nm from shore. For these reasons, NMFS will apply a moving 3-yr average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the proposed ACLs. Specifically, NMFS and the Council will use the average catch during fishing year 2013, 2014, and 2015 to evaluate fishery performance against the appropriate 2015 ACL. At the end of each fishing year, the Council will review catches relative to each ACL. If NMFS and the Council determine the three-year average catch for the fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS and the Council will reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in the subsequent year.

    You may find additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed specifications published on July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43046).

    Comments and Responses

    The comment period for the proposed specifications ended on August 5, 2015. NMFS received comments from a commercial bottomfish fisherman on the proposed specifications for non-Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), and from the U.S. Air Force on the applicability of annual catch limits for recreational fishing at Wake Atoll in the Pacific Remote Island Areas. NMFS responds to these comments as follows:

    Comment 1: The proposed ACL should account for changes in the historical landings of non-Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI that resulted from changes in market conditions and regulatory actions. The commenter suggested that, in the past, MHI fishermen limited their catch of certain non-Deep 7 bottomfish species because they were associated with ciguatera (a toxin) and because fishermen received low prices for their catch due to higher volume of fish provided by the bottomfish fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The commenter noted, however, that the closure of the NWHI fishery in 2010 and restrictions on landing MHI Deep 7 bottomfish upon reaching the annual catch limit in past fishing season have resulted in MHI fishermen targeting non-Deep 7 bottomfish, and landing more fish in recent years.

    Response: NMFS and the Council considered changes in the historical landing when specifying the ACL and AMs for MHI non-Deep 7 bottomfish. The Biomass Augmented Catch Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) model, which generates the estimate of MSY which is used as the basis for the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, and ACL, uses the historical catch record for MHI non-Deep 7 bottomfish from 1966-2013. Thus, in estimating MSY, the model includes the period of time when changes occurred in the landings of MHI non-Deep 7 bottomfish. NMFS and the Council continue to work on improving the scientific, commercial, and other information that provide the basis for management decisions, and are exploring fishery-independent methods and technologies for assessing bottomfish resources. As information becomes available, NMFS will accommodate such data in future models and stock assessments.

    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that, because the ACL for MHI non-Deep 7 bottomfish is based on imperfect data, NMFS should allow more leeway in applying the AMs if the fishery exceeds the ACL.

    Response: Under federal regulations at 50 CFR 600.310 implementing the ACL requirement, the ACL serves as the basis for invoking the AM. AMs are management controls to prevent a fishery from exceeding an ACL and to correct or mitigate any overage of the ACL. While the data may be imperfect, the Council and NMFS established the ACLs using the best available information, and NMFS must adhere to the established ACL and AM process. See 50 CFR 665.4 and 50 CFR 600.310.

    Comment 3: The U.S. Air Force requested confirmation that the proposed ACLs and AMs for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral and coral reef fisheries at Wake Island take into account the annual recreational harvest levels described in the Air Force Fishing Management Plan for Wake Atoll.

    Response: In the proposed specifications (80 FR 43046, July 21, 2015), NMFS explained that we did not propose ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS regulated under the PRIA FEP. In the Supplementary section of this final rule, NMFS again clarifies that it is not specifying ACLs for PRIA bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS. This is because fishing is currently prohibited within 12 nm of emergent land, unless authorized by the USFWS in consultation with NMFS and the Council (See 50 CFR 665.933). Also, there is no coral reef habitat seaward of the 12-nm prohibited fishing area. To date, the USFWS has not consulted with NMFS for any fishing that the USFWS may authorize within 12 nm of the PRIA. Consultation with the USFWS would provide information that NMFS and the Council need to monitor catch and effort in the PRIA, and to develop any future catch limits that would be necessary.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of Pacific Island fishery resources, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for the certification in the proposed rule and does not repeat it here. NMFS received no comments on this certification; as a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

    This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866 because it contains no implementing regulations.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21394 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 168 Monday, August 31, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3149; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-014-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of premature aging of certain chemical oxygen generators in the passenger compartment that resulted in failure of the generators to activate. This proposed AD would require inspecting to determine if certain passenger chemical oxygen generators are installed, and replacement of affected generators. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the chemical oxygen generator to activate during an emergency situation, which could result in unavailability of oxygen and possible incapacitation of the occupants.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    For B/E Aerospace service information identified in this proposed AD, contact B/E Aerospace Inc., 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, KS 66215; telephone 913-338-9800; fax 913-469-8419; Internet http://beaerospace.com/home/globalsupport.

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3149; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3149; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0119, dated June 24, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Reports have been received indicating premature ageing of certain passenger chemical oxygen generators, Part Number (P/N) 1170242-XX, manufactured by B/E Aerospace. Some operators reported that when they tried to activate generators, some older units failed to activate. Given the number of failed units reported, all the generators manufactured in 1999, 2000, and 2001 must be considered unreliable.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the generator to activate and consequently not deliver oxygen during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to aeroplane occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A35L007-14, making reference to B/E Aerospace Service Information Letter (SIL) D1019-01 (currently at Revision 1) and B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 117042-35-001. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0277 to require identification and replacement of the affected oxygen generators.

    Since EASA AD 2014-0277 was issued, and following new investigation results, EASA has decided to introduce a life limitation concerning all P/N 117042-XX chemical oxygen generators, manufactured by B/E Aerospace.

    For the reason described above, this EASA AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0277, which is superseded, expands the scope of the AD to include chemical oxygen generators manufactured after 2001, and requires their removal from service before exceeding 10 years since date of manufacture.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3149.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A35L007-14, Revision 01, June 17, 2015; including Appendix A. B/E Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated December 10, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting to determine if certain passenger chemical oxygen generators are installed, and replacing affected generators. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $7,735. Replacement 1 work hour × $85 per hour = $85 $1,000 per oxygen generator $1,085 per oxygen generator $98,735 for one oxygen generator.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-3149; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-014-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 15, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes; except those on which a gaseous system for all oxygen generators is installed.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of premature aging of certain chemical oxygen generators in the passenger compartment that resulted in failure of the generators to activate. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the chemical oxygen generator to activate during an emergency situation, which could result in unavailability of oxygen and possible incapacitation of the occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect each passenger chemical oxygen generator to identify the date of manufacture (refer to Figures 1 and 2 of paragraph (g) of this AD for the location of the date) of each passenger chemical oxygen generator having any part number (P/N) listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A35L007-14, Revision 01, June 17, 2015; including Appendix A. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the date of manufacture of the generator can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (1) 117042-02 (15minutes (min)—2 masks).

    (2) 117042-03 (15 min—3 masks).

    (3) 117042-04 (15 min—4 masks).

    (4) 117042-22 (22 min—2 masks).

    (5) 117042-23 (22 min—3 masks).

    (6) 117042-24 (22 min—4 masks).

    EP31AU15.000 EP31AU15.001 (h) Replacement of Pre-2002 Passenger Oxygen Generators

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any passenger chemical oxygen generator having a date of manufacture of 1999, 2000, or 2001 is found: At the time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, replace the affected passenger chemical oxygen generator, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus AOT A35L007-14, Revision 01, June 17, 2015; including Appendix A (for 15 and 22-minute passenger chemical oxygen generators); or in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated December 10, 2014 (for 15-minute passenger chemical oxygen generators).

    (1) For units manufactured in 1999: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For units manufactured in 2000: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For units manufactured in 2001: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Replacement of 2002 Through 2009 Passenger Oxygen Generators

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any passenger chemical oxygen generator having a date of manufacture of 2002 through 2008 is found: At the time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(7), or (i)(8) of this AD, as applicable, replace the affected passenger chemical oxygen generator with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus AOT A35L007-14, Revision 01, June 17, 2015; including Appendix A (for 15 and 22-minute passenger chemical oxygen generators); or in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated December 10, 2014 (for 15-minute passenger chemical oxygen generators).

    (1) For units manufactured in 2002: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For units manufactured in 2003: Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For units manufactured in 2004: Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For units manufactured in 2005: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (5) For units manufactured in 2006: Within 28 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (6) For units manufactured in 2007: Within 32 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (7) For units manufactured in 2008: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (8) For units manufactured in 2009 or later: Before the accumulation of 10 years since date of manufacture.

    (j) Definition of a Serviceable Unit

    A serviceable unit is an oxygen generator having P/N 117042-XX, with a manufacturing date not older than 10 years, or any other FAA-approved P/N, provided that the generator has not exceeded the life limit established by the manufacturer for that generator.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the applicable actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A35L007-14, dated December 18, 2014, including Appendix A.

    (l) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a passenger chemical oxygen generator on any airplane, unless the passenger chemical oxygen generator is determined to be a serviceable unit, as defined in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425- 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0119, dated June 24, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3149.

    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (3) For B/E Aerospace service information identified in this proposed AD, contact B/E Aerospace Inc., 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, KS 66215; telephone 913-338-9800; fax 913-469-8419; Internet http://beaerospace.com/home/globalsupport.

    (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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 21, 2015. Kevin Hull, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21428 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2014-1057] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk CT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North WALK Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile 0.1, at Norwalk, Connecticut. The bridge owner submitted a request to require a greater advance notice for bridge openings and to increase the time periods the bridge remains in the closed position during the weekday morning and evening commuter rush hours. It is expected that this change to the regulations will create efficiency in drawbridge operations while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-1057 using any one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Chris Bisignano, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone 212-514-4331, [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: Tables of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section Symbol U.S.C. United States Code A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2014-1057), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2014-1057 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-1057) 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. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the three methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard published a test deviation with request for comment; Norwalk River, Connecticut, (80 FR 1334), under docket number (USCG-2014-1057), in effect from January 1, 2015, through June 28, 2015, to test the proposed changes to the drawbridge operation regulations. Six comments were received on the docket. Four of these comments argued the test deviation did not offer sufficient time during daylight hours for vessels to pass through both the Metro-North WALK Bridge and the downstream State Route 136 Bridge. In addition, tidal impacts further diminished opportunities for passage. Two comments noted negative economic impacts to upstream businesses should the test deviation be implemented as a rule change because the restrictive daytime hours combined with the need for high tide moves along the river would inhibit the ability to utilize marine borne deliveries. As a result of the comments and discussions with the bridge owner, the Coast Guard proposes the new schedule as discussed below.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The Metro-North WALK Bridge, mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(b). The waterway users are seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.

    The existing Drawbridge Operation Regulations require the draw of the Metro-North Walk Bridge to open on signal as follows:

    From 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., except that, from Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., unless an emergency exists.

    Only once in any 60-minute period from 5:45 a.m. to 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.

    From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., if at least four hours notice is given.

    A delay of up to 20 minutes may be expected if a train is approaching so closely that it may not be safely stopped.

    This regulation has been in effect since April 24, 1984.

    The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a change to the Drawbridge Operation Regulations because the volume of train traffic across the bridge during the peak commuting hours makes bridge openings impractical under the current schedule. As a result, bridge openings that occur during peak commuter train hours cause significant delays to commuter rail traffic.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    As a result of comments received from the test deviation, 80 FR 1334, and discussions with the bridge owner, the Coast Guard proposes to permanently change the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.217(b), that would allow the Metro-North WALK Bridge at mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River, at Norwalk, Connecticut, to operate as follows:

    The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from 4:30 a.m. through 9:30 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 9 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.

    From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a four hour advance notice is given.

    A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge lock.

    Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at the bridge.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866, or under section1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The Coast Guard believes that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because the bridge will still open for all vessel traffic after an advance notice is given, except during the morning and afternoon closed periods. The vertical clearance under the bridge in the closed position is relatively high enough to accommodate most vessel traffic during the time periods the draw is closed during the morning and evening commuter rush hours.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the bridge from 4:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays.

    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Metro-North WALK Bridge will continue to open on signal provided the required advance notice is given, except during the morning and afternoon closed periods. The vertical clearance under the bridge in the closed position is high enough to accommodate most vessel traffic during the time period the draw is closed, except for emergencies, during the morning and evening commuter rush hours closures.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule 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 proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

    However, the United States Coast Guard is providing the State of Connecticut's coastal management program with a Consistency Determination under CZMA § 307(c)(1)(C) and 15 CFR part 930, subpart C. Pursuant to 15 CFR part 930.35(b), the Coast Guard is providing the State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program with a Negative Determination under 15 CFR part 930.35(a)(1) regarding the change to the operating schedule for the Metro-North “WALK” Bridge at mile 0.1 across the Norwalk River in Norwalk, Connecticut. The State's concurrence will be presumed if the State's response is not received by the USCG, Bridge Program Office, at Commander (dpb), One South Street, New York, NY 10004-1466, on the 60th day from receipt of this Determination.

    We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. In § 117.217, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

    § 117.217 Norwalk River.

    (b) The Metro-North WALK Bridge at mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River, at Norwalk, Connecticut shall operate as follows:

    (1) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from 4:30 a.m. through 9:30 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 9 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.

    (2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a four hour advance notice is given.

    (3) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge lock.

    (4) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at the bridge.

    Dated: August 20, 2015. L.L. Fagan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21531 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738; FRL-9933-16-OAR] Notice of Final Approval for the Operation of Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flares at The Dow Chemical Company and ExxonMobil Chemical Company and Notice of Receipt of Approval Request for the Operation of a Pressure-Assisted Multi-Point Ground Flare at Occidental Chemical Corporation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; approval and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces our approval of the Alternative Means of Emission Limitation (AMEL) requests for the operation of multi-point ground flares (MPGF) at The Dow Chemical Company's (Dow) Propane Dehydrogenation Plant and Light Hydrocarbons Plant located at its Texas Operations site in Freeport, Texas, and the ExxonMobil Chemical Company (ExxonMobil) Olefins Plant in Baytown, Texas, and its Plastics Plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas. This approval notice also specifies the operating conditions and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for demonstrating compliance with the AMEL that these facilities must follow.

    In addition, this notice solicits comments on an all aspects of an AMEL request from Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) in which long-term MPGF burner stability and destruction efficiency have been demonstrated on different pressure-assisted MPGF burners that OCC has proposed for use in controlling emissions at its Ingleside, Texas, ethylene plant.

    Lastly, this notice presents and solicits comments on all aspects of a framework of both MPGF burner testing and rule-specific emissions control equivalency demonstrations that we anticipate, when followed, would afford us the ability to approve future AMEL requests for MPGF in a more efficient and streamlined manner.

    DATES:

    The AMEL for the MPGF at Dow's Propane Dehydrogenation Plant and Light Hydrocarbons Plant located at its Texas Operations site in Freeport, Texas, and ExxonMobil's Olefins Plant in Baytown, Texas, and Plastics Plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas are approved and effective August 31, 2015.

    Comments. Written comments on the AMEL request from OCC for their MPGF in Ingleside, Texas, or on the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests must be received on or before October 15, 2015.

    Public Hearing. Regarding the OCC MPGF in Ingleside, Texas, or the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests, if requested by September 8, 2015, we will hold a public hearing on September 15, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 8:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] in Corpus Christi, Texas. We will provide details on the public hearing on our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/groundflares/groundflarespg.html. To be clear, a public hearing will not be held unless someone specifically requests that the EPA hold a public hearing regarding the OCC MPGF or the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt of the Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0832; email address: [email protected]; to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the public hearing will be September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Instructions. Direct your comments on the OCC MPGF or the framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or 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/dockets.

    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, 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. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this action, contact Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4036; fax number: (919) 541-0246; and email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Acronyms and Abbreviations

    We use multiple acronyms and terms in this notice. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this notice and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    AMEL alternative means of emission limitation Btu/scf British thermal units per standard cubic feet CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESL effects screening level FR Federal Register HAP hazardous air pollutants LEL lower explosive limit LFL lower flammability limit LFL cz combustion zone lower flammability limit MPGF multi-point ground flare NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NHV net heating value NHV cz combustion zone net heating value NSPS new source performance standards OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OCC Occidental Chemical Corporation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PDH propane dehydrogenation unit PFTIR passive Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy psig pounds per square inch gauge QA quality assurance QC quality control TAC Texas Administrative Code TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality VOC volatile organic compounds Organization of This Document. The information in this notice is organized as follows: I. Background A. Summary B. Flare Operating Requirements C. Alternative Means of Emission Limitation II. Summary of Significant Public Comments on the AMEL Requests for Pressure-Assisted MPGF A. Regulatory Compliance Language and Calculation Methodology B. NHV cz and LFL cz Operating Limits and Averaging Time C. Monitoring Systems D. AMEL Mechanism and Process E. Other III. Final Notice of Approval of the AMEL Requests and Required Operating Conditions IV. Notice of AMEL Request for Occidental Chemical Corporation V. Notice of Framework for Streamlining Approval of Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF AMEL Requests I. Background A. Summary

    On February 13, 2015, the EPA published an initial notice in the Federal Register (FR) acknowledging receipt of AMEL approval requests for the operation of several MPGF at The Dow Chemical Company's Dow Propane Dehydrogenation Plant and Light Hydrocarbons Plant located at its Texas Operations site located in Freeport, Texas, and ExxonMobil's Olefins Plant in Baytown, Texas, and its Plastics Plant in Mont Belvieu, Texas (see 80 FR 8023, February 13, 2015). This initial notice also solicited comment on all aspects of the AMEL requests and the resulting alternative operating conditions that are necessary to achieve a reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions required by various standards in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 that apply to emission sources that would be controlled by these pressure-assisted MPGF. These standards point to the operating requirements for flares in the General Provisions to parts 60 and 63, respectively, to comply with the emission reduction requirements. Because pressure-assisted MPGF cannot meet the velocity requirements in the General Provisions, Dow and ExxonMobil requested an AMEL. This action provides a summary of comments received as part of the public review process, our responses to those comments, and our approval of the requests received from Dow and ExxonMobil for an AMEL for the MPGF at the specific plants listed above, along with the operating conditions they must follow for demonstrating compliance with the AMEL.

    This action also solicits comments on all aspects of an AMEL request from OCC in which MPGF burner stability and destruction efficiency have been demonstrated on different pressure-assisted MPGF burners that OCC has proposed for use in controlling emissions at its Ingleside, Texas, ethylene plant.

    Lastly, because we are aware that facilities plan to build or are considering use of MPGF as an emissions control technology, this action presents and solicits comments on all aspects of a framework for streamlining future MPGF AMEL requests that we anticipate, when followed, would afford the agency the ability to review and approve future AMEL requests for MPGF in a more efficient and expeditious manner. We note here though that all aspects of future AMEL requests would still be subject to a notice and comment proceeding.

    B. Flare Operating Requirements

    In their requests, Dow and ExxonMobil cited various regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 that will apply to the different flare vent gas streams that will be collected and routed to their pressure-assisted MPGF at each plant. These requirements were tabulated in the initial notice for this action (80 FR 8023, February 13, 2015). The applicable rules require that control devices achieve destruction efficiencies of either 95 percent or 98 percent either directly, or by reference, or allow control by flares meeting the flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 or 40 CFR 63.11. The flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11 specify that flares shall be: (1) Steam-assisted, air-assisted or non-assisted; 1 (2) operated at all times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours); and (4) operated with the presence of a pilot flame at all times. The flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11 also specify requirements for both the minimum heat content of gas combusted in the flare and the maximum exit velocity at the flare tip.2 These provisions specify maximum flare tip velocities based on flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted or air-assisted) and the net heating value of the flare vent gas (see 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3) and 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)). These maximum flare tip velocities are required to ensure that the flame does not “lift off” or separate from the flare tip, which could cause flame instability and/or potentially result in a portion of the flare gas being released without proper combustion. Proper combustion for flares is considered to be 98 percent destruction efficiency or greater for organic HAP and VOC, as discussed in our recent proposal titled “Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards,” 79 FR 36880, 36904-36912 (June 30, 2014).

    1 While Dow and ExxonMobil describe their flares as “pressure-assisted,” these flares qualify as “non-assisted” flares under 40 CFR 60.18(b) or 63.11(b) because they do not employ assist gas.

    2 These requirements are not all inclusive. There are other requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11 relating to monitoring and testing that are not described here.

    The MPGF proposed by both Dow and ExxonMobil are different in both flare head design and operation than the more traditional steam-assisted, air-assisted and non-assisted flare types currently able to comply with the flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 or 63.11. The MPGF technology operates by using the pressure upstream of each individual flare tip burner to enhance mixing with air at the flare tip due to high exit velocity, which in turn allows the MPGF to operate in a smokeless capacity. The MPGF are constructed differently than normal elevated flares in that they consist of many rows of individual flare tips which are approximately eight feet above ground level. The ground flare staging system opens and closes staging valves according to gas pressure such that stages containing multiple burners are activated as the flow and pressure increase or decrease in the header. While information supplied by Dow, and relied on by both Dow and ExxonMobil, indicates that the flare tips operate in a smokeless capacity and achieve high destruction efficiencies, the MPGF cannot meet the exit velocity requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11, which limit the exit velocity at the flare tip to a maximum of 400 feet per second. The exit velocities from MPGF typically range from 600 feet per second up to sonic velocity (which ranges from 700 to 1,400 feet per second for common hydrocarbon gases), or Mach = 1 conditions. As a result, Dow and ExxonMobil are seeking an alternative means of complying with the flare operating requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11; specifically, the exit velocity requirements in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3), (c)(4) and (c)(5) and in 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6), (b)(7) and (b)(8).

    C. Alternative Means of Emission Limitation

    As noted above, the specific rules in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, or the General Provisions for parts 60, 61 and 63 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 3 allow a facility to request an AMEL. These provisions allow the Administrator to permit the use of an alternative means of complying with an applicable standard, if the requestor demonstrates that the alternative achieves at least an equivalent reduction in emissions. The EPA provided notice of the requests and an opportunity for both a public hearing and opportunity for comment on the requests in the FR (see 80 FR 8023, February 13, 2015). After considering the comments received during the public comment period, the EPA is approving the AMEL requests and the use of the MPGF at Dow's two plants at its Texas Operations site in Freeport, Texas, and at ExxonMobil's two plants in Mont Belvieu, Texas, and Baytown, Texas.

    3 CAA section 111(h)(3) states: “If after notice and opportunity for public hearing, any person establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an alternative means of emission limitation will achieve a reduction in emissions of any air pollutant at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of such air pollutant achieved under the requirements of paragraph (1), the Administrator shall permit the use of such alternative by the source for purposes of compliance with this section with respect to such pollutant.” Section 112(h)(3) contains almost identical language.

    II. Summary of Significant Public Comments on the AMEL Requests for Pressure-Assisted MPGF

    This section contains a summary of the major comments and responses, and rationale for the approved MPGF operating conditions and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the MPGF will achieve a reduction in emissions of HAP and VOC at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of other traditional flare systems complying with the requirements in 40 CFR 60.18(b) and 40 CFR 63.11(b).

    A. Regulatory Compliance Language and Calculation Methodology

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the EPA clarify the relationship between the AMEL and the requirements at 40 CFR 63.11 and 40 CFR 60.18. Specifically, the commenters suggested that the EPA add the following or similar language: “Compliance with applicable portions of 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11, together with the AMEL, satisfy the new source performance standards (NSPS) and/or national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) requirements that refer to 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11.” The commenters further state that adoption of this language would allow deletion of requirements #2 and #3 related to pilot flames, visible flames, and visible emissions standards in the initial AMEL notice.

    Response: First, we clarify here for both of Dow's plants and both of ExxonMobil's plants that will use MPGF as a control device that compliance with the requirements in Section III of this AMEL notice satisfies the flare NSPS and NESHAP requirements referenced in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11. However, we disagree with commenters that deletion of the language related to pilot flames and visible flames is appropriate given the unique design of MPGF installations and their various rows of hundreds of burners. The language currently in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11 was intended to ensure that more traditional, individual flare tips had a flame present at all times by requiring that a pilot flame is always present. While having at least a single pilot flame is appropriate for a single flare tip, it in no way assures that each of the hundreds of flare tips that are arranged in multiple stages in a MPGF installation will ignite and have a flare flame when vent gas is sent to the system. Thus, we are not requiring Dow and ExxonMobil to comply with these requirements precisely as outlined currently in the General Provisions and are instead finalizing, based on information provided by these companies with respect to staging design and number of pilots per stage, a requirement in the AMEL that each stage of burners in the MPGF installation have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame. This requirement will provide the agency with a high level of assurance that a flare flame is present at all times when the other applicable requirements are also being met.

    Commenters also suggested that the language in the initial AMEL notice related to pilot flame presence at Section III, #2 (see 80 FR 8030, February 13, 2015) had slightly different wording elements compared to the flare General Provisions requirements. We agree with the commenters that some of the language is different, but note that requiring at least two pilot flames on each stage of burners to be continuously lit and monitored as opposed to only a single pilot flame as prescribed in the General Provisions is a necessary change. However, we have incorporated language in this final action to be more consistent with the requirements in the General Provisions to allow pilot flames to be monitored by thermocouples “or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence of a flame.”

    Lastly, we agree with the commenters that the language in the initial AMEL notice related to visible emissions at Section III, #3 is somewhat redundant with the requirements in the General Provisions, but given that we are requiring facilities to use a video camera to conduct visible emissions observations we must address the visible emissions requirements specifically.

    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the EPA include in the final AMEL notice the equations and references to physical data needed to calculate NHV cz and LFL cz.

    Response: We agree with the commenters and are incorporating these changes in this final action.

    B. NHVcz and LFLcz Operating Limits and Averaging Time

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the EPA should not set a precedent for potential future flare standards with respect to a 15-minute averaging period for the combustion parameters (i.e., NHV cz and LFL cz) or on-line monitoring technology. Commenters also suggested that the operating requirements of NHV cz of 800 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) or greater or LFL cz of 6.5 percent by volume or less are based on the single worst-case data point, that this is not consistent with the Marathon Petroleum test report data, and that establishing a limit based on the single worst test run could set bad precedent for future potential flare and/or AMEL standards.

    Response: First, we note that flares by their very nature are designed to handle and combust highly variable waste gas flows and compositions. Given that both Dow and ExxonMobil have requested use of MPGF for applications in controlling emissions related to periods of upset, maintenance, startup and shutdown, the question for the Agency becomes how do these facilities demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that this AMEL will achieve a reduction in emissions of VOC and HAP at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions required by the various standards in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 for highly variable flow and vent gas composition control scenarios.

    An assessment of the data we used to evaluate these AMEL requests suggests that at least an equivalent reduction in emissions control for MPGF has been demonstrated and can be maintained provided there is a stable, lit flame. In reviewing the supporting data, long-term stability was demonstrated by 20-minute test runs with fairly consistent flow and composition; however, there were also five test runs which showed instability in as little as 1 to 2 minutes. Considering that Dow and ExxonMobil will be producing and using olefins in their process, the Dow test is more appropriate and representative of the types of waste gas compositions and flows their MPGF will expect to handle compared to the natural gas and nitrogen mixtures burned in the Marathon test. Thus, the operating requirements of an NHV cz of 800 Btu/scf or greater or LFL cz of 6.5 percent by volume or less which come from the Dow test, while conservative, provides reasonable assurance that these particular sources will maintain a stable flame for consistent flows and waste gas compositions expected to be burned by these particular sources as opposed to a refiner like Marathon whose waste gas originates from a different source category.

    Finally, the available data we are using to assess what the appropriate averaging time should be for these unique MPGF installations indicate that there could exist a gap between the MPGF system response (e.g., the sampling of the waste gas stream and the introduction of supplemental fuel to counteract a low heat content waste gas stream) and flame stability for situations of highly variable flow and/or highly variable waste gas composition. In light of this, we considered reasonable options that provide assurance that these MPGF installations will control emissions at a high level of efficiency with a stable, lit flame during these particular events. In evaluating these options, we concluded that a short averaging time is necessary to ensure that the MPGF installations will work as intended. Given the fact that we are allowing use of on-line gas chromatographs to perform compositional analysis to determine compliance with the NHV cz and LFL cz operating parameters, we cannot require shorter averaging times than the monitoring technology will allow, which is 15 minutes, and which we are finalizing in this action. In addition, we are also finalizing an alternative to allow the use of a calorimeter to monitor directly for NHV cz, which Dow or ExxonMobil may choose to use if they have similar concerns about variable flow/waste gas composition impacting flame stability, as these types of monitoring systems have significantly faster response times (e.g., 1 minute) than those of gas chromatographs. Lastly, we acknowledge the concerns presented with respect to setting precedent for potential future flare standards on averaging time and online monitoring technology. However, we note that this comment is beyond the scope of this action and not relevant to the site-specific action of the AMEL requests for the use of MPGF at these specific Dow or ExxonMobil facilities.

    C. Monitoring Systems

    Comment: A number of commenters suggested that pressure and flow monitors on each stage of the MPGF are unnecessary, as the MPGF are not designed with pressure and flow monitors on each individual stage, but, rather, rely on the monitoring system on the main flare header that is used by the process control system to open and close various stages of the flare system. Commenters instead suggested that flow and pressure should be monitored on the main flare header, as well as valve position indicators showing whether the valves are open or closed for each staging valve. Another commenter agreed that flare header pressure was important, but questioned why the initial AMEL notice did not require a minimum flare header pressure set at 15 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), since EPA stated that MPGF typically required 15 psig at the main flare header to properly operate. The commenter also suggested that the AMEL require monitoring of pressure at each stage and also set minimum flare header pressure requirements.

    Response: We agree that monitoring of flow and pressure on each individual stage is not needed as long as the flare header pressure and flow are adequately monitored. Given that the header pressure will be the maximum pressure at any point in the MPGF, the pressure of each stage will be at or lower than the main flare header pressure. As the commenters noted, the process control logic system opens and closes the staging valves based on the MPGF header pressure. Therefore, flare header pressure and information on which stages are open or closed will provide enough information to determine whether the MPGF is operating as designed. For example, if the pressure is low in the main flare header and below the minimum operating pressure of the burners in stage 2, the valve position indicator for stage 2 as well any valve position indicators for stages after stage 2 should show that those stages are all closed. Both AMEL requests referenced the range of operating pressures of the burners/stages, and, therefore, this final AMEL requires that the MPGF burners be operated within the range of tested conditions or within the range of the manufacturer's specifications, as demonstrated using header pressure and valve position indicators. We note that, while we discussed a typical flare header operating pressure in the technical memorandum supporting the initial AMEL notice and discussions (see memorandum “Review of Available Test Data on Multipoint Ground Flares” at Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738-0002), we are providing the sites with a specific range of operating pressures to comply, as presented in their AMEL requests and supporting test data.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should require each facility to install real-time fenceline monitoring to protect and inform communities if there is an increase in HAP crossing the fenceline during flaring events. The commenter stated that the proposed AMEL would allow operators to shift emissions from elevated flares to ground level, thus increasing ground-level pollution because emissions released at ground level, as compared to an elevated stack, do not disperse as far and remain in higher concentrations around the emitting source. The commenter stated that, as a result, the AMEL would increase exposure and risk and likely disproportionately impact minority and low income populations. Another commenter stated that based on dispersion modeling calculations conducted for the propane dehydrogenation unit (PDH) plant flare system, they project that the off-site concentrations of any air contaminant will be <1 percent of the TCEQ's effects screening level (ESL) for both the short-term one hour average concentrations and the annual averages.4 The commenter stated that these projected off-site impacts are similar to what is expected from an elevated flare. Given the low off-site concentrations predicted, it is the commenter's opinion that additional ambient air monitoring is not warranted for this AMEL request. Other commenters suggested that flow and composition monitoring, in concert with monitoring for flame presence, would provide substantially more valuable information for evaluating the downwind effect of a flameout as compared to ambient monitoring. Another commenter suggested lower explosive limit (LEL) monitors around a ground flare could provide an indication of a malfunction or slow, unburned leaks from staging valves that the direct waste gases and flare monitors might miss.

    4 See “Multi-Point Ground Level Flare Modeling Discussion” at Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738 for further information on modeling results.

    Response: Comments on additional monitoring of the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere surrounding the ground flare address a range of concerns. Some comments relate to the efficiency of the flare and the emission potential of the flare when the ground flare is working as expected, and other comments relate to when the ground flare experiences flameout or some other event where uncombusted materials have the potential to be emitted. We agree that the combination of pilot flame monitoring in concert with flow and composition monitoring (and pressure/staging valve monitoring) or use of LEL monitors in the immediate area of the ground flare are several methods the operator can use to identify an improperly-operating flare. However, if the suite of operating conditions being finalized in Section III below are met, we feel that the MPGF should operate properly and with a high level of destruction efficiency. Although we understand that the MPGF are equipped with safety interlocks and in some cases LEL monitors, we are not requiring they operate these systems under our final AMEL requirements for Dow and ExxonMobil. Rather, additional safety analyses should be addressed under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Process Safety Management 5 and the EPA's Risk Management Program.6 Regarding comments pertaining to the need for some type of monitoring for communities that may be impacted by these MPGF installations, we are not mandating any type of fenceline or community monitoring in the AMEL approval because the approval is on the basis that the facilities have adequately demonstrated that the MPGF are capable of achieving or exceeding the emissions reductions mandated by the underlying NSPS and/or NESHAP. However, through a separate effort, we are helping to facilitate discussions between the communities near these Dow and ExxonMobil facilities and the companies involved to explore possible monitoring that will address specific concerns of the communities (see “Community Open Forum Discussions” at Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738).

    5 See https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/processsafetymanagement/ for more details.

    6 See http://www2.epa.gov/rmp for more details.

    Comment: A few commenters suggested that our provisions should allow for at least a 5 percent downtime limit for continuous monitoring data outside of maintenance periods, instrument adjustments and calibration checks, similar to the requirements in Texas VOC Sampling Rule protocol found at 30 TAC 115.725(d)(3).

    Response: First, we note that the Texas VOC sampling protocol only excludes time for “normal calibration checks” and does not exclude time for “maintenance periods” or “instrument adjustments.” Our initial AMEL notice required operation of the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) at all times except during “maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments.” Except for the time periods we excluded, we consider that the monitor should be continuously operated. However, we agree with the commenters that it is reasonable to set an upper limit on the time period for maintenance periods and instrument adjustments, so we are adding an additional sentence to the AMEL provisions as follows: “Additionally, maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.”

    Comment: One commenter noted that, because operating personnel cannot enter the fenced area while the MPGF is operating, visual observation in accordance with the monitoring requirements of the General Provisions is impractical and cannot assure compliance. The commenter also stated that visible emissions from ground flares are a known problem and that community members in Port Arthur have submitted several complaints about smoke releases from the ground flare at the BASF Olefins Plant. Therefore, the commenter stated that it is imperative for the EPA to assure that the AMEL requires video monitoring that is adequate to assure compliance. Also, the EPA must require each facility to submit the video monitoring data to the appropriate authorities as part of any periodic compliance reports required by the CAA.

    Response: We agree that the MPGF systems should be operated with no visible emissions and we included a requirement in the initial AMEL notice to use video surveillance cameras to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. We did not, however, in the initial AMEL notice indicate how else the operators would demonstrate compliance with the visible emissions limit. We agree that because operating personnel cannot enter the fenced area while the MPGF is operating, it is difficult to understand how any daily EPA Method 22 visible emissions monitoring for only 5 minutes during the day when operators could enter (when the flare was not operating) would be an effective method of ensuring compliance with this requirement. Therefore, we are requiring that the MPGF operators employ the use of a surveillance camera for visible emissions monitoring and record and maintain footage of this video for all periods when the MPGF is “operating,” meaning burning gas other than pilots. While we are only requiring the video surveillance footage to be maintained as a record, we are requiring that Dow and ExxonMobil report in their periodic compliance reports any deviations of the visible emissions standard.

    D. AMEL Mechanism and Process

    Comment: One commenter suggested that a successful demonstration of equivalent emissions control was provided for the proposed MPGF burners to be used at both ExxonMobil's Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant and Baytown Olefins Plant. In support of this suggestion, the commenter suggests that the two test reports submitted during the comment period, combined with the ExxonMobil AMEL application, provide the technical support and justification to demonstrate such equivalency for both of ExxonMobil's plants.

    Response: We agree with the commenter that the information submitted by ExxonMobil successfully demonstrates an equivalent level of emissions control for the MPGF burners that will be used at ExxonMobil's Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant and Baytown Olefins Plant, provided that the requirements specified in Section III below are met. Therefore, we are approving ExxonMobil's AMEL request to use a MPGF at both of its plants.

    Comment: Several commenters generally supported the AMEL process as an appropriate mechanism to authorize use of MPGF as an equivalent emissions control technology and also provided recommendations for using the AMEL process for future projects or updates. These recommendations included providing flexibility to facilities to accommodate burner equivalency, providing facilities with a simple mechanism that allows information or alternate combustion parameters to be updated without requiring re-approval where additional data are provided and providing facilities who elect to apply for an AMEL a process for providing the EPA with information that demonstrates a MPGF burner is stable over the expected design range in lieu of requiring additional emissions (i.e., combustion/destruction efficiency) testing.

    Response: In light of the comments received on providing flexibility for use of other, future MPGF burner designs and emissions testing, we are providing in this notice a framework for sources to consider and use to streamline potential future approvals of AMEL requests for MPGF installations. We note that facilities requesting any such alternative limit will still have to go through a public notice and comment review process.

    Comment: A few commenters provided additional test information for pressure-assisted flares for the EPA to consider as having equivalent performance to the other burner types addressed in the AMEL. Additionally, these commenters also suggested that flare manufacturers, instead of owners or operators of a particular source, be allowed to test and pre-certify a particular pressure-assisted flare type.

    Response: First, while we appreciate the additional pressure-assisted flare test data submitted by commenters, there is significant detail lacking in the submittals to fully evaluate the equivalency of these particular flares at this time, and, given that some of the data submitted are for a flare tip not being proposed for use by Dow or ExxonMobil, we find that information to be outside the scope of the AMEL. With respect to allowing flare manufacturers, instead of owners or operators of sources that would possibly use a MPGF to control emissions, to test and pre-certify a particular type of pressure-assisted flare, the CAA sections 111(h)(3) and 112(h)(3) limit AMEL requests to “the owner or operator of any source.” Thus, we cannot allow this particular request. We are, however, as part of this action seeking comment on a proposed framework for streamlining approval of future AMEL requests for MPGF installations which flare manufacturers, working in concert with the owner or operator of a source who wishes to use a pressure-assisted MPGF type installation, will be able to follow and provide to the agency the necessary input, testing and performance demonstration information.

    E. Other

    Comment: One commenter stated that the AMEL request is based on inadequate data to assure 98 percent destruction efficiency and stated that the EPA must require facilities that seek permission to comply with the AMEL in lieu of the General Provisions to perform long-term passive Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (PFTIR) testing to determine the operating limits necessary to assure an equivalent level of control. The commenter further indicated that studies have consistently shown that the mixture and specific chemical composition of the gas discharged to a flare impact combustion efficiency and that the EPA did not verify or investigate whether the facilities seeking approval to operate under an AMEL will discharge gas to the proposed MPGF that is similar in chemical composition to the gas used in the tests used to develop the AMEL. Further, commenters' review of available data suggests that the facilities seeking approval to operate under an AMEL will discharge gas that exhibit hydrogen-olefin interactions.

    Response: As we stated in the initial AMEL notice, one general conclusion made from the EPA's 1985 study is that stable flare flames and high (>98-99 percent) combustion and destruction efficiencies are attained when flares are operated within operating envelopes specific to each flare burner and gas mixture tested, and that operation beyond the edge of the operating envelope can result in rapid flame de-stabilization and a decrease in combustion and destruction efficiencies. The data where flameout of the burners occurred from test runs in both the Marathon 2012 test report and the Dow 2013 test report showed that the flare operating envelope was different for the different gas mixtures tested. Additionally, the data indicate that combustion degradation beyond the edge of the operating envelope for pressure-assisted MPGF burners is so rapid that when a flame is present, the flare will still achieve a high level of combustion efficiency right up until the point of flameout. The results of the available PFTIR testing demonstrated that when a flame was present on the pressure-assisted flare burners tested, an average combustion efficiency of 99 percent or greater was achieved. Since the initial AMEL notice, we received additional combustion efficiency test data that further confirms this observation (see OCC comments in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-204-0738-0030). In other words, the critical parameter in ensuring that the MPGF will achieve equivalent efficiency is dependent on a stable MPGF burner flame rather than the actual combustion efficiency, which to date has always been 98 percent or better over the gas composition mixtures tested. Therefore, we do not find that there is a need to operate a continuous PFTIR to demonstrate continuous combustion efficiency for MPGF. Instead, we rely on the continuous measurement of net heating value or lower flammability limit operating limits to ensure that the MPGF are operating well above the points of flame instability for the gas compositions evaluated. Further, based on our understanding of the PFTIR testing method, it is technically impracticable to operate a continuous PFTIR due to interferences that would be present for a continuous system on the multipoint array of burners in the MPGF (e.g., availability of multiple sight lines and changing ambient conditions such as rain or fog). However, in the event that technology advancements make the continuous demonstration of combustion efficiency feasible, we acknowledge that this may provide another means by which operators can demonstrate equivalence with existing standards. Finally, while it is true that, in the development of operating limits for refinery flares, we noted in the refinery proposal that a higher NHVcz target was appropriate for some mixtures of olefins and hydrogen, the combustion zone operating limits we are finalizing in today's notice are significantly more stringent than combustion zone parameters developed for traditional elevated refinery flares, including those with hydrogen and olefins, which should alleviate any such concerns with respect to combustion efficiency for these types of gas mixtures. In addition, and as discussed elsewhere in this section, an olefinic gas mixture (i.e., propylene mixture) was tested and used to determine the NHVcz and LFLcz operating limits for the olefins plants applying for an AMEL. This gas mixture is both representative and challenging to the system with respect to the vent gas mixtures the MPGF will burn. In fact, when considering the full array of flare vent gas mixtures tested (e.g., natural gas mixtures in the Marathon test, propylene mixtures in the Dow test and ethylene mixtures in the OCC test) and their corresponding points of flare flame instability on the MPGF burners, no single data point has shown instability above the NHVcz (or below the LFLcz) operating limits being finalized for Dow and ExxonMobil in Section III below.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that flare minimization is also another important tool to mitigate the impact that MPGF will have on communities and suggested that the EPA require implementation of a flare management plan that requires facilities to:

    (1) Identify the sources of the gas routed to a flare;

    (2) Assess whether the gas routed to a flare can be minimized;

    (3) Describe each flare covered by the flare management plan;

    (4) Quantify the baseline flow rate to the flare after minimization techniques are implemented;

    (5) Establish procedures to minimize or eliminate discharges to the flare during startup and shutdown operations; and

    (6) If the flare is equipped with flare gas recovery, establish procedures to minimize downtime of the equipment.

    Response: We consider the requirement to develop a flare management plan to be outside the scope of this AMEL. The purpose of this AMEL is to set site-specific conditions that an operator of a MPGF can use as an alternative to the existing requirements of 40 CFR 60.18 or 40 CFR 63.11 for flares, which do not include requirements for flare management plans.

    III. Final Notice of Approval of the AMEL Requests and Required Operating Conditions

    Based on information the EPA received from Dow and ExxonMobil and the comments received through the public comment period, operating requirements for the pressure-assisted MPGF at both of Dow's plants and both of ExxonMobil's plants that will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions being controlled by a steam-assisted, air-assisted or non-assisted flare complying with the requirements of either 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b) are as follows:

    (1) The MPGF system must be designed and operated such that the combustion zone gas net heating value (NHV cz) is greater than or equal to 800 Btu/scf or the combustion zone gas lower flammability limit (LFL cz) is less than or equal to 6.5 percent by volume. Owners or operators must demonstrate compliance with the NHV cz or LFL cz metric by continuously complying with a 15-minute block average. Owners or operators must calculate and monitor for the NHV cz or LFL cz according to the following:

    (a) Calculation of NHV cz

    (i) The owner or operator shall determine NHV cz from compositional analysis data by using the following equation:

    EP31AU15.002 Where: NHV vg = Net heating value of flare vent gas, British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf). Flare vent gas means all gas found just prior to the MPGF. This gas includes all flare waste gas (i.e., gas from facility operations that is directed to a flare for the purpose of disposing of the gas), flare sweep gas, flare purge gas and flare supplemental gas, but does not include pilot gas. i = Individual component in flare vent gas. n = Number of components in flare vent gas. x i = Concentration of component i in flare vent gas, volume fraction. NHV i = Net heating value of component i determined as the heat of combustion where the net enthalpy per mole of offgas is based on combustion at 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and 1 atmosphere (or constant pressure) with water in the gaseous state from values published in the literature, and then the values converted to a volumetric basis using 20 °C for “standard temperature.” Table 1 summarizes component properties including net heating values.

    (ii) FOR MPGF, NHV vg = NHV cz.

    (b) Calculation of LFL cz

    (i) The owner or operator shall determine LFL cz from compositional analysis data by using the following equation:

    EP31AU15.003 Where: LFL vg = Lower flammability limit of flare vent gas, volume fraction. n = Number of components in the vent gas. i = Individual component in the vent gas. χ i = Concentration of component i in the vent gas, volume percent (vol %). LFL i = Lower flammability limit of component i as determined using values published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (Zabetakis, 1965), vol %. All inerts, including nitrogen, are assumed to have an infinite LFL (e.g., LFL N2 = ∞, so that χ N2/LFL N2 = 0). LFL values for common flare vent gas components are provided in Table 1.

    (ii) FOR MPGF, LFL vg = LFL cz.

    (c) The operator of a MPGF system shall install, operate, calibrate and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring flare vent gas flow rate.

    (d) The operator shall install, operate, calibrate and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring (i.e., at least once every 15-minutes), calculating, and recording the individual component concentrations present in the flare vent gas or the owner or operator shall install, operate, calibrate and maintain a monitoring system capable of continuously measuring, calculating and recording NHV vg.

    (e) For each measurement produced by the monitoring system, the operator shall determine the 15-minute block average as the arithmetic average of all measurements made by the monitoring system within the 15-minute period.

    (f) The operator must follow the calibration and maintenance procedures according to Table 2. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.

    Table 1—Individual Component Properties Component Molecular formula MWi
  • (pounds per pound-mole)
  • NHVi
  • (British thermal units per standard cubic foot)
  • LFLi
  • (volume %)
  • Acetylene C2H2 26.04 1,404 2.5 Benzene C6H6 78.11 3,591 1.3 1,2-Butadiene C4H6 54.09 2,794 2.0 1,3-Butadiene C4H6 54.09 2,690 2.0 iso-Butane C4H10 58.12 2,957 1.8 n-Butane C4H10 58.12 2,968 1.8 cis-Butene C4H8 56.11 2,830 1.6 iso-Butene C4H8 56.11 2,928 1.8 trans-Butene C4H8 56.11 2,826 1.7 Carbon Dioxide CO2 44.01 0 Carbon Monoxide CO 28.01 316 12.5 Cyclopropane C3H6 42.08 2,185 2.4 Ethane C2H6 30.07 1,595 3.0 Ethylene C2H4 28.05 1,477 2.7 Hydrogen H2 2.02 274 4.0 Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 34.08 587 4.0 Methane CH4 16.04 896 5.0 Methyl-Acetylene C3H4 40.06 2,088 1.7 Nitrogen N2 28.01 0 Oxygen O2 32.00 0 Pentane+ (C5+) C5H12 72.15 3,655 1.4 Propadiene C3H4 40.06 2,066 2.16 Propane C3H8 44.10 2,281 2.1 Propylene C3H6 42.08 2,150 2.4 Water H2O 18.02 0
    Table 2—Accuracy and Calibration Requirements Parameter Accuracy requirements Calibration requirements Flare Vent Gas Flow Rate ±20 percent of flow rate at velocities ranging from 0.1 to 1 feet per second
  • ±5 percent of flow rate at velocities greater than 1 foot per second
  • Performance evaluation biennially (every two years) and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the flow rate exceeded the maximum rated flow rate of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspections and checks of system operation every 3 months, unless the system has a redundant flow sensor.
  • Select a representative measurement location where swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances at the point of measurement are minimized.
  • Pressure ±5 percent over the normal range measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever is greater Review pressure sensor readings at least once a week for straight-line (unchanging) pressure and perform corrective action to ensure proper pressure sensor operation if blockage is indicated.
  • Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the pressure exceeded the maximum rated pressure of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and galvanic corrosion every 3 months, unless the system has a redundant pressure sensor.
  • Select a representative measurement location that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion.
  • Net Heating Value by Calorimeter ±2 percent of span Calibration requirements should follow manufacturer's recommendations at a minimum.
  • Temperature control (heated and/or cooled as necessary) the sampling system to ensure proper year-round operation.
  • Where feasible, select a sampling location at least two equivalent diameters downstream from and 0.5 equivalent diameters upstream from the nearest disturbance. Select the sampling location at least two equivalent duct diameters from the nearest control device, point of pollutant generation, air in-leakages, or other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs.
  • Net Heating Value by Gas Chromatograph As specified in Performance Specification 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B Follow the procedure in Performance Specification 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, except that a single daily mid-level calibration check can be used (rather than triplicate analysis), the multi-point calibration can be conducted quarterly (rather than monthly), and the sampling line temperature must be maintained at a minimum temperature of 60 °C (rather than 120 °C).

    (2) The MPGF system shall be operated with a flame present at all times when in use. Each stage of MPGF burners must have at least two pilots with a continuously lit pilot flame. The pilot flame(s) must be continuously monitored by a thermocouple or any other equivalent device used to detect the presence of a flame. The time, date and duration of any complete loss of pilot flame on any stage of MPGF burners must be recorded. Each monitoring device must be maintained or replaced at a frequency in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

    (3) The MPGF system shall be operated with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours. A video camera that is capable of continuously recording (i.e., at least one frame every 15 seconds with time and date stamps) images of the flare flame and a reasonable distance above the flare flame at an angle suitable for visible emissions observations must be used to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The owner or operator must provide real-time video surveillance camera output to the control room or other continuously manned location where the video camera images may be viewed at any time.

    (4) The operator of a MPGF system shall install and operate pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header, as well as a valve position indicator monitoring system for each staging valve to ensure that the MPGF operates within the range of tested conditions or within the range of the manufacturer's specifications. The pressure monitor shall meet the requirements in Table 2. Maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy, and zero and span adjustments may not exceed 5 percent of the time the flare is receiving regulated material.

    (5) Recordkeeping Requirements

    (a) All data must be recorded and maintained for a minimum of three years or for as long as applicable rule subpart(s) specify flare records should be kept, whichever is more stringent.

    (6) Reporting Requirements

    (a) The information specified in (b) and (c) below should be reported in the timeline specified by the applicable rule subpart(s) for which the MPGF will control emissions.

    (b) Owners or operators should include the following information in their initial Notification of Compliance status report:

    (i) Specify flare design as a pressure-assisted MPGF.

    (ii) All visible emission readings, NHV cz and/or LFL cz determinations and flow rate measurements. For MPGF, exit velocity determinations do not need to be reported as the maximum permitted velocity requirements in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11 are not applicable.

    (iii) All periods during the compliance determination when a complete loss of pilot flame on any stage of MPGF burners occurs.

    (iv) All periods during the compliance determination when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the MPGF burners operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications.

    (v) All periods during the compliance determination when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the MPGF should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the MPGF should be in operation and is not.

    (c) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of periods of excess emissions in their Periodic Reports. These periods of excess emissions shall include:

    (i) Records of each 15-minute block during which there was at least one minute when regulated material was routed to the MPGF and a complete loss of pilot flame on a stage of burners occurred.

    (ii) Records of visible emissions events that are time and date stamped and exceed more than 5 minutes in any 2 hour consecutive period.

    (iii) Records of each 15-minute block period for which an applicable combustion zone operating limit (i.e., NHV cz or LFL cz) is not met for the MPGF when regulated material is being combusted in the flare. Indicate the date and time for each period, the NHV cz and/or LFL cz operating parameter for the period and the type of monitoring system used to determine compliance with the operating parameters (e.g., gas chromatograph or calorimeter).

    (iv) Records of when the pressure monitor(s) on the main flare header show the MPGF burners are operating outside the range of tested conditions or outside the range of the manufacturer's specifications. Indicate the date and time for each period, the pressure measurement, the stage(s) and number of MPGF burners affected and the range of tested conditions or manufacturer's specifications.

    (v) Records of when the staging valve position indicator monitoring system indicates a stage of the MPGF should not be in operation and is or when a stage of the MPGF should be in operation and is not. Indicate the date and time for each period, whether the stage was supposed to be open but was closed or vice versa and the stage(s) and number of MPGF burners affected.

    IV. Notice of AMEL Request for Occidental Chemical Corporation

    On December 16, 2014, OCC submitted an AMEL request indicating plans to construct an ethylene production unit that will be comprised of five ethane cracking furnaces and associated recovery equipment at its plant located in Ingleside, Texas. As part of this request, OCC described plans to control emissions from the ethylene production unit using two thermal oxidizers as both a primary and backup control device for periods of normal operation and low-pressure maintenance, startup, and shutdown events, and that it is seeking an AMEL for a MPGF installation for use during limited high-pressure maintenance, startup, and shutdown events as well emergency situations. As part of its AMEL request, as well as in its comments submitted to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738-0030 on March 30, 2015, during the Dow and ExxonMobil initial AMEL notice comment period, OCC requested an AMEL for use of different MPGF burners at its plant located in Ingleside, Texas, than the burners Dow and ExxonMobil plan to use at their plants. Specifically, OCC provided both destruction efficiency/combustion efficiency testing and long-term MPGF flame stability testing for ethylene and ethylene-inert waste gas mixtures on its proposed MPGF burners. These test data show good performance below an NHV cz of 800 Btu/scf or above an LFL cz of 6.5 volume percent, although OCC stated in the AMEL request that it plans to comply with the same compliance requirements laid out for Dow and ExxonMobil in Section III above. Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether these operating requirements would establish an AMEL for OCC that will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions for flares complying with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b).

    V. Notice of Framework for Streamlining Approval of Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF AMEL Requests

    We are seeking comments on a framework sources may use to submit an AMEL request to the EPA to use MPGF as control devices to comply with NSPS and NESHAP under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. At a minimum, sources considering use of MPGF as an emissions control technology should provide the EPA with the following information in its AMEL request when demonstrating MPGF equivalency:

    (1) Project Scope and Background

    (a) Size and scope of plant, products produced, location of facility and the MPGF proximity, if less than 2 miles, to the local community and schools.

    (b) Details of overall emissions control scheme (e.g., low pressure control scenario and high pressure control scenario), MPGF capacity and operation (including number of rows (stages), number of burners and pilots per stage and staging curve), and MPGF control utilization (e.g., handles routine flows, only flows during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance, emergencies).

    (c) Details of typical and/or anticipated flare waste gas compositions and profiles for which the MPGF will control.

    (d) MPGF burner design including type, geometry, and size.

    (e) Anticipated date of startup.

    (2) Regulatory Applicability

    (a) Detailed list or table of applicable regulatory subparts, applicable standards that allow use of flares, and authority that allows for use of an AMEL.

    (3) Destruction Efficiency/Combustion Efficiency Performance Demonstration

    (a) Sources must provide a performance demonstration to the agency that the MPGF pressure-assisted burner being proposed for use will achieve a level of control at least equivalent to the most stringent level of control required by the underlying standards (e.g., 98% destruction efficiency or better). Facilities can elect to do a performance test that includes a minimum of three test runs under the most challenging conditions (e.g., highest operating pressure and/or sonic velocity conditions) using PFTIR testing, extractive sampling or rely on an engineering assessment. Sources must test using fuel representative of the type of waste gas the MPGF will typically burn or substitute a waste gas such as an olefin gas or olefinic gas mixture that will challenge the MPGF to perform at a high level of control in a smokeless capacity.

    (i) If a performance test is done, a test report must be submitted to the agency which includes at a minimum: A description of the testing, a protocol describing the test methodology used, associated test method quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) parameters, raw field and laboratory data sheets, summary data report sheets, calibration standards, calibration curves, completed visible emissions observation forms, a calculation of the average destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency over the course of each test, the date, time and duration of the test, the waste gas composition and NHV cz and/or LFL cz the gas tested, the flowrate (at standard conditions) and velocity of the waste gas, the MPGF burner tip pressure, waste gas temperature, meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, and barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, relative humidity), and whether there were any observed flare flameouts.

    (ii) If an engineering assessment is done, sources must provide to the agency a demonstration that a proper level of destruction/combustion efficiency was obtained, through prior performance testing or the like for a similar equivalent burner type design. To support an equivalent burner assessment of destruction/combustion efficiency, sources must discuss and provide information related to design principles of burner type, burner size, burner geometry, air-fuel mixing, and the combustion principles associated with this burner that will assure smokeless operation under a variety of operating conditions. Similarly, sources must also provide details outlining why all of these factors, in concert with the waste gas that was tested in the supporting reference materials, support the conclusion that the MPGF burners being proposed for use by the source will achieve at least an equivalent level of destruction efficiency as required by the underlying applicable regulations.

    (4) Long-Term MPGF Stability Testing

    (a) The operation of a MPGF with a stable, lit flame is of paramount importance to continuously ensuring good flare performance; therefore, any source wishing to demonstrate equivalency for purposes of using these types of installations must conduct a long-term stability performance test. Since flare tip design and waste gas composition have significant impact on the range of stable operation, sources should use a representative waste gas the MPGF will typically burn or a waste gas, such as an olefin or olefinic mixture, that will challenge the MPGF to perform at a high level with a stable flame as well as challenge its smokeless capacity.

    (b) Sources should first design and carry out a performance test to determine the point of flare flame instability and flameout for the MPGF burner and waste gas composition chosen to be tested. Successful, initial demonstration of stability is achieved when there is a stable, lit flame for a minimum of five minutes at consistent flow and waste gas composition. It is recommended, although not required, that sources determine the point of instability at sonic flow conditions or at the highest operating pressure anticipated. Any data which demonstrates instability and complete loss of flame prior to the five minute period must be reported along the initial stable flame demonstration. Along with destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency, the data elements laid out in 3(a)(i) should also be reported.

    (c) Using the results from (b) above as a starting point, sources must perform a minimum of three replicate tests at both the minimum and maximum operating conditions on at least one MPGF burner at or above the NHV cz or at or below the LFLcz determined in 4(b). If more than one burner is tested, the spacing between the burners must be representative of the projected installation. Each test must be a minimum of 15-minutes in duration with constant flow and composition for the three runs at minimum conditions, and the three runs at the maximum conditions. The data and data elements mentioned in 4(b) must also be reported.

    (5) MPGF Cross-light Testing

    (a) Sources must design and carryout a performance test to successfully demonstrate that cross-lighting of the MPGF burners will occur over the range of operating conditions (e.g., operating pressure and/or velocity (Mach) condition) for which the burners will be used. Sources may use the NHV cz and/or LFL cz established in 4 above and perform a minimum of three replicate runs at each of the operating conditions. Sources must cross-light a minimum of three burners and the spacing between the burners and location of the pilot flame must be representative of the projected installation. At a minimum, sources must report the following: A description of the testing, a protocol describing the test methodology used, associated test method QA/QC parameters, the waste gas composition and NHV cz and/or LFL cz of the gas tested, the velocity (or Mach speed ratio) of the waste gas tested, the MPGF burner tip pressure, the time, length, and duration of the test, records of whether a successful cross-light was observed over all of the burners and the length of time it took for the burners to cross-light, records of maintaining a stable flame after a successful cross-light and the duration for which this was observed, records of any smoking events during the cross-light, waste gas temperature, meteorological conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, and barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, relative humidity), and whether there were any observed flare flameouts.

    (6) Flaring Reduction Considerations

    (a) Sources must make a demonstration, considering MPGF utilization, on whether additional flare reduction measures, including flare gas recovery, should be utilized and implemented.

    (7) MPGF Monitoring and Operating Conditions

    (a) Based on the results of the criteria mentioned above in this section, sources must make recommendations to the agency on the type of monitoring and operating conditions necessary for the MPGF to demonstrate equivalent reductions in emissions as compared to flares complying with the requirements at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11, taking into consideration a control scheme designed to handle highly variable flows and waste gas compositions.

    We solicit comment on all aspects of this framework. We anticipate this framework would enable the agency to review and approve future AMEL requests for MPGF installations in a more expeditious timeframe because we anticipate that the information required by the framework would provide us with sufficient information to evaluate future AMEL requests. We note that all aspects of future AMEL requests would still be subject to a notice and comment proceeding.

    Dated: August 20, 2015. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21420 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1149] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Jackson County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Jackson County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas.

    DATES:

    This withdrawal is effective on August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1149 to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 2, 2010, FEMA published a proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 67319, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Jackson County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: August 20, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21507 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 5 [ET Docket Nos. 10-236, 06-155; FCC 15-76] Radio Experimentation and Market Trials AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission proposes to modify the rules for program experimental licenses to permit experimentation for radio frequency (RF)-based medical devices, if the device being tested is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in Part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; Part 95, Personal Radio Services Subpart H—Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or Part 95, Subpart I—Medical Device Radiocommunication Service. This proposal is designed to establish parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices as to permissible frequencies of operation.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed on or before September 30, 2015 and reply comments must be filed on or before October 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2452, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-2989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155, FCC 15-76, adopted July 6, 2015, and released July 8, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In two April 2015 filings, Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic) observes that program licenses “may not be issued for operation on frequencies listed in § 15.205 of the rules, which includes the 401-406 MHz Medical Device Radiocommunications Service (`MedRadio') band often employed by makers of implanted and body-worn medical devices.” Medical testing licensees, on the other hand, may use those frequencies, if they comply with applicable service rules. Medtronic therefore argues that this disparity in frequencies contributes to program licensees being less flexible than medical testing licensees.

    2. As discussed in the companion Memorandum Opinion & Order in this proceeding, basic medical research and experimentation would be conducted under a program (or conventional) license by any manufacturer of RF-based medical devices, whether that manufacturer is eligible for a medical testing license or not. The Commission created the program experimental license to reduce regulatory delay and uncertainty and to promote innovation. A program license is granted for a five year term and allows the licensee to conduct multiple unrelated experiments within a broad range of frequencies. Because researchers can modify the scope of their experiments without having to obtain Commission permission to do so, the flexibility provided will accelerate innovation in RF technology, including RF-based medical devices. However, the program license rules do not permit experimentation in frequency bands that are restricted under § 15.205(a) of the Commission's Rules to protect the many safety-of-life and passive services that operate in these bands.

    3. Medtronic rightly points out that the 401-406 MHz band is a restricted band under § 15.205(a) and is not available for basic research under the program license rules. However, the 401-406 MHz band is used for implanted and body worn medical devices under the part 95 MedRadio rules. Consequently, manufacturers of certain RF-based medical devices cannot take advantage of the benefits provided by a program license to advance innovation in this area, even though the devices they ultimately develop could be authorized for use under the Commission's rules. Because clinical trials conducted under the medical testing license or as a market trial may be tested in these bands, the Commission sees no reason to impose greater frequency restrictions on program licensees conducting basic research on the same devices.

    4. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to modify the rules for program licenses to permit experimentation on frequencies listed in § 15.205(a) of the Commission's rules, provided that—comparable to the rules for medical testing licenses—the device being tested is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; part 95, Personal Radio Services Subpart H—Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or part 95, Subpart I—Medical Device Radiocommunication Service. The proposed rule changes are shown below. These changes would establish parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices (as defined in § 5.402(b) of the Commission's Rules) as to permissible frequencies of operation.

    Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Rules

    5. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    7. This FNPRM proposes only a single change to the rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding (78 FR 25138, April 29, 2013), and that proposed change would merely make available to program experimental radio licensees that undertake experiments with medical devices the same frequencies that are currently available to medical testing experimental radio licensees. The entities affected by the proposed rule change are equipment manufacturers seeking to test medical equipment designed to operate in the restricted frequency bands listed in § 15.205(a) of the Commission's rules, and such manufacturers are very limited in number. Thus, the proposal in the FNPRM will not have a substantial economic impact on a significant number of small entities.

    8. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposal in this FNPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If commenters believe that the proposal discussed in the FNPRM requires additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including a copy of this initial certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of the FNPRM and this initial certification will be published in the Federal Register.

    9. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: This FNPRM does not contain a proposed information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

    10. Comment Filing Instructions: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    Ordering Clauses

    11. Pursuant to section 4(i), 301, 303 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 303, and 405 and § 1.1, 1.2, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.2, and 1.429, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    12. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief, Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subject in 47 CFR Part 5

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rule Change

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 5 as follows:

    PART 5—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 4, 302, 303, 307, 336 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 307, 336. Interpret or apply sec. 301, 48 Stat. 1081, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 301.

    2. Section 5.303 is revised to read as follows:
    § 5.303 Frequencies.

    (a) Licensees may operate in any frequency band, including those above 38.6 GHz, except for frequency bands exclusively allocated to the passive services (including the radio astronomy service). In addition, licensees may not use any frequency or frequency band below 38.6 GHz that is listed in § 15.205(a) of this chapter.

    (b) Exception: Licensees may use frequencies listed in § 15.205(a) of this chapter for testing medical devices (as defined in § 5.402(b) of this chapter), if the device is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; part 95, Personal Radio Services Subpart H—Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or part 95, Subpart I—Medical Device Radiocommunication Service.

    [FR Doc. 2015-21294 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 168 Monday, August 31, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0011] Recognizing European Union (EU) and EU Member State Regionalization Decisions for African Swine Fever (ASF) by Updating the APHIS List of Regions Affected with ASF AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that we are adding European Union (EU) and EU Member State-defined regions of the EU to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) list of regions affected with African swine fever (ASF). We will recognize as affected with ASF any region of the EU that the EU or any EU Member State has placed under restriction because of detection of ASF. These regions currently include portions of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and all of Sardinia. APHIS will list the EU- and EU Member State-defined regions as a single entity. We are therefore removing Sardinia as an individually listed region from the APHIS list of ASF affected regions. We are taking this action because of the detection of ASF in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The addition of the EU- and EU Member State-defined regions to the APHIS list of regions affected with ASF is effective August 31, 2015. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0011.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0011, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Any comments we receive may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0011 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Donald Link, Import Risk Analyst, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7731; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), bovine spongiform encephalopathy, swine vesicular disease (SVD), classical swine fever (CSF), and African swine fever (ASF). The regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live ruminants and swine, and products from these animals, from regions where these diseases are considered to exist.

    Sections 94.8 and 94.17 of part 94 of the regulations contain requirements governing the importation into the United States of pork and pork products from regions of the world where ASF exists or is reasonably believed to exist. A list of regions where ASF exists or is reasonably believed to exist is maintained on the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/animals_disease_status.shtml.

    Currently, the Islands of Sardinia and Malta are the only regions of the European Union (EU) that APHIS lists as affected with ASF. However, ASF outbreaks have recently occurred in domestic and feral swine in portions of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The EU has determined that the ASF virus was introduced into these regions from neighboring countries where ASF is present in both the feral and domestic swine populations. The EU has imposed restrictions on the movement of swine and swine products from the regions in which ASF was detected and surrounding regions in the EU. The restrictions and the regions subject to restriction by the EU are listed in the European Commission's Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU.1

    1 The European Commission is the EU institution responsible for representing the EU as a whole. It proposes legislation, policies, and programs of action and implements decisions of the EU Parliament and Council. Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU is available online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0709.

    In response to the outbreaks of ASF in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, APHIS is modifying its list of ASF-affected regions. First, we are adding a new entry that would read “Any restricted zone in the European Union (EU) established by the EU or any EU Member State because of detection of African swine fever in domestic or feral swine.” Second, we are removing Sardinia as an individually listed region. With the addition of this entry to the APHIS list of ASF-affected regions, the APHIS-recognized ASF status of almost any region of the EU would follow the EU and EU Member State restrictions based on ASF detections. Going forward, we would not list each affected region of the EU. We will continue to list Malta individually, which we currently recognize as affected with ASF, but which is not under ASF restrictions by the EU. We are currently evaluating the ASF status of Malta at the request of the EU. If we determine based on our evaluation that the ASF status of Malta should be changed, we will publish our findings and the evaluation for public comment. Adding this entry to the list would subject swine and swine products from EU-restricted regions to APHIS import restrictions designed to mitigate risk of ASF introduction into the United States.

    APHIS has previously evaluated the animal health infrastructure, veterinary oversight and legislation, and disease control programs of the EU and individual EU Member States for multiple livestock and poultry species and diseases. Previous APHIS evaluations assessed EU-wide animal health measures and the ability of a Member State to effectively transpose EU animal health regulations into its own veterinary infrastructure and livestock and/or poultry disease control programs. All of the evaluations were conducted in accordance with 9 CFR 92.2, which sets forth the requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region as well as for the approval of the export of a particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region. Most of the evaluations included a site visit. Through these evaluations, APHIS has analyzed veterinary oversight and animal health infrastructure at both the EU level and the individual Member State level, as well as disease history and vaccination practices for multiple diseases, livestock demographics and traceability practices for multiple species, epidemiologic separation from potential sources of infection, and surveillance programs, diagnostic laboratory capabilities, and emergency preparedness and response capabilities for multiple livestock and poultry diseases.

    Overall, APHIS has consistently concluded that the animal health infrastructure, veterinary oversight and legislation, and corresponding disease control programs are adequate at the EU level. While APHIS evaluations did find unique strengths and weaknesses in individual Member States, overall the findings of these evaluations have been favorable for the Member States. After assessing Member State animal health infrastructure, veterinary oversight and legislation, and disease control programs, and the Member States' ability to transpose and implement EU-level animal health controls, APHIS has taken liberalizing trade action for the EU and certain Member States. APHIS has recognized some Member States as free from FMD, rinderpest, SVD, and/or ASF; evaluated the EU and individual Member States for Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza, resulting in APHIS establishing the APHIS-defined EU Poultry Trade Region; and evaluated the EU and individual Member States and other European countries for CSF, resulting in APHIS establishing the APHIS-defined European CSF region.

    APHIS recognizing EU and EU Member State regionalization decisions for ASF in the EU is similar to APHIS recognition of EU and Member State regionalization decisions for Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza in the EU, and for CSF in the EU and other European countries, and is supported by previous APHIS evaluations of EU Member States for these and other livestock and poultry diseases as described above. In the event that the EU or an EU Member State significantly changes or entirely removes its ASF restrictions or otherwise significantly alters its regulatory framework for ASF, APHIS will conduct an evaluation to assess the impact of the changes on the risk of ASF introduction into the United States. APHIS will present for public comment the findings of any such evaluation.

    Because the EU- and EU Member State-defined ASF-affected regions includes areas not currently on the APHIS list of ASF-affected regions, we are adding the new entry to our list immediately to prevent the introduction of ASF into the United States. We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this notice (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another notice in the Federal Register. The notice will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any changes we are making in response to the comments.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of August 2015. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21497 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 24, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if they are received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Title: 7 CFR part 220, School Breakfast Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0012.

    Summary of Collection: Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) authorizes the School Breakfast Program as a nutrition assistance program and authorizes payments to States to assist them to initiate, maintain, or expand nonprofit breakfast programs in schools. The provision requires that “Breakfasts served by schools participating in the School Breakfast Program under this section shall consist of a combination of foods and shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research.” The School Breakfast Program is administered and operated in accordance with the National School Lunch Act (NSLA). The Program is administered at the State and school food authority (SFA) levels and the operations include the submission and approval of applications, execution of agreements, submission of claims, payment of claims, monitoring, and providing technical assistance. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the School Breakfast Program on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture so that needy children may receive their breakfasts free or at a reduced price.

    Need and Use of the Information: States, SFAs, and schools are required to keep accounts and records as may be necessary to enable FNS to determine whether the program is in compliance. School food authorities collect information from the schools and provide that information to State agencies.

    The State agencies report to FNS. FNS uses the information to monitor State agency and SFA compliance, determine the amount of funds to be reimbursed, evaluate and adjust program operations, and to monitor program funding and program trends.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 110,270.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Monthly.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,824,307.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21341 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) intention to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a 3-year extension of and revision to a currently approved information collection, a voluntary customer survey concerning the delivery of official inspection, grading, and weighing services authorized under the United States Grain Standards Act and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This voluntary survey gives customers that are primarily in the grain, oilseed, rice, lentil, dry pea, edible bean, and related agricultural commodity markets an opportunity to provide feedback on the quality of services they receive and provides GIPSA with information on new services that customers wish to receive. Customer feedback assists GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) with enhancing the value of services and service delivery provided by the official inspection, grading, and weighing system.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail, hand deliver, or courier: M. Irene Omade, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-S, Washington, DC 20250-3604.

    Fax: (202) 690-2173.

    Instructions: All comments should be identified as “FGIS customer service survey” and should reference the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. The information collection package and other documents relating to this action will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. All comments will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call GIPSA's Management and Budget Services Staff at (202) 720-8479 to arrange to inspect documents.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer S. Hill, Grain Marketing Specialist, Departmental Initiatives and International Affairs, email address: [email protected], telephone (202) 690-3929.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Congress enacted the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) to facilitate the marketing of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. These statutes provide for the establishment of standards and terms which accurately and consistently measure the quality of grain and related products, provide for uniform official inspection and weighing, provide regulatory and service responsibilities, and furnish the framework for commodity quality improvement incentives to both domestic and foreign buyers. The GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) establishes policies, guidelines, and regulations to carry out the objectives of the USGSA and the AMA. Regulations appear at 7 CFR 800, 801, and 802 for the USGSA and 7 CFR 868 for the AMA.

    The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires official inspection of export grain sold by grade. Official services are provided, upon request, for grain in domestic commerce. The AMA authorizes similar inspection and weighing services, upon request, for rice, pulses, flour, corn meal, and certain other agricultural products. There are approximately 9,000 current users of the official inspection, grading, and weighing programs. These customers are located nationwide and represent a diverse mixture of small, medium, and large producers, merchandisers, processors, exporters, and other financially interested parties. These customers request official services from an FGIS Field Office; delegated, designated, or cooperating State office; or designated private agency office.

    The goal of FGIS and the official inspection, grading, and weighing system is to provide timely, high quality, accurate, consistent, and professional service that facilitates the orderly marketing of grain and related commodities. To accomplish this goal and in accordance with E.O. 12862, FGIS is seeking feedback from customers to evaluate the services provided by the official inspection, grading, and weighing programs.

    Title: Survey of Customers of the Official Inspection, Grading, and Weighing Programs (Grain and Related Commodities).

    OMB Number: 0580-0018.

    Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The collection of information using a voluntary service survey will provide customers of FGIS and the official inspection, grading, and weighing services an opportunity to evaluate, on a scale of one to five, the timeliness, cost-effectiveness, accuracy, consistency, and usefulness of those services and results, and the professionalism of employees. Customers will also have an opportunity to provide additional comments or indicate what new or existing services they would use if such services were offered or available.

    FGIS needs to maintain a formal means of determining customers' expectations and the quality of official services that are delivered. To collect this information, FGIS would continue to conduct, over a 3-year period, an annual voluntary customer service survey of current and potential customers of the official inspection, grading, and weighing system. FGIS would make the survey available to any interested party who visits our Web site or is provided the link. The survey instrument would consist of twelve (12) questions only; subsequent survey instruments would be tailored to earlier responses. The information collected from the survey would permit FGIS to gauge customers' satisfaction with existing services, compare results from year to year, and determine what new services customers desire. The customer service survey consists of one document containing questions about timeliness, cost effectiveness, accuracy, consistency, usefulness of services and results, and the professionalism of employees. Some examples of survey questions include the following: “I receive results in a timely manner,” “Official results are accurate,” and “Inspection personnel are knowledgeable.” These survey questions would be assessed using a one to five rating scale with responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or “no opinion.” Customers would also be asked about the products for which they primarily request service, and what percentage of their product is officially inspected. Customers can also provide additional comments or request new or existing services on the survey. Space would be added on the revised survey for customers to provide their email addresses should they wish to be directly contacted about their survey responses.

    By obtaining information from customers through a voluntary customer service survey, FGIS believes that it will continue to improve services and service delivery of its official inspection, grading, and weighing programs that meets or exceeds customer expectations.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes (i.e., 0.167 hours) per response.

    Respondents: The primary respondents will be interested current or potential customers of the official inspection, grading, and weighing program who either visit the GIPSA Web site or receive the link via outreach communications.

    FY 2016: Estimated Number of Respondents: 605 (i.e., 1100 total customers times 55% response rate = 605).

    Frequency of Responses: 1.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 109 hours. (605 responses times 0.167 hours/response plus 495 non respondents times 0.0170 hours/response = 109 hours).

    FY 2017: Estimated Number of Respondents: 616. (i.e., 1100 total customers times 56% response rate = 616).

    Frequency of Responses: 1.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 111 hours (616 responses times 0.167 hours/response plus 484 non respondents times 0.0170 hours/response = 111 hours).

    FY 2018: Estimated Number of Respondents: 627 (i.e., 1100 total customers times 57% response rate = 627).

    Frequency of Responses: 1.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 105 hours (627 responses times 0.167 hours/response plus to 473 non respondents times 0.0170 hours/response = 113 hours).

    As required by the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(i)), GIPSA specifically requests comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of GIPSA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21422 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Construction Progress Reporting Survey AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Erica M. Filipek, U.S. Census Bureau, EID, CENHQ Room 7K057, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6900, telephone (301) 763-5161 (or via email at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Census Bureau plans to request a revision of a currently approved collection for forms C-700, C-700(R), C-700(SL), and C-700(F). These forms are used to conduct the Construction Progress Reporting Surveys (CPRS) and collect information on the dollar value of construction put in place. Form C-700, Private Construction Projects, collects construction put in place data for nonresidential projects owned by private companies or individuals. Form C-700(R), Multi-family Residential Projects, collects construction put in place data for private multi-family residential buildings. Form C-700(SL), State and Local Government Projects, collects construction put in place data for state and local government projects. Form C-700(F), Federal Government Projects collects construction put in place for federal government projects.

    The Census Bureau uses the information from these surveys to publish the value of construction put in place for the `Construction Spending' monthly principal economic indicator. Published estimates are used by a variety of private business and trade associations to estimate the demand for building materials and to schedule production, distribution, and sales efforts. They also provide various government agencies with a tool to evaluate economic policy and to measure progress towards established goals. For example, Bureau of Economic Analysis staff use data to develop the construction components of gross private domestic investment in the gross domestic product. The Federal Reserve Board and the Department of the Treasury use the value in place data to predict the gross domestic product, which is presented to the Board of Governors and has an impact on monetary policy.

    There are two changes planned to the content of these questionnaires. The first is the elimination of the data item for square footage of the construction project. This information was used for editing but is no longer needed. The second change is the addition of a data item to collect the projected completion date to assist with imputation if a response is not obtained in future months.

    II. Method of Collection

    An independent systematic sample of construction projects is selected each month according to predetermined sample rates. Once a project is selected, it remains in the sample until completion of the project. Preprinted forms are mailed monthly to respondents to fill in current month data and any revisions to previous months. Respondents also have the option to report online using a password protected site. Nonrespondents are later called by a Census interviewer and are asked to report data over the phone. Having the information available from a database at the time of the interview greatly helps reduce the time respondents spend on the phone. Interviews are scheduled at the convenience of the respondent, which further reduces their burden.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0153.

    Form Number(s): C-700, C-700(R), C-700(SL), C-700(F).

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Individuals, Businesses or Other for Profit, Not-for-Profit Institutions, Small Businesses or Organizations, State and Local Governments and the Federal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: C-700 = 6,900; C-700(R) = 3,300; C-700(SL) = 12,200; C-700(F) = 1,600; TOTAL = 24,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 min. for the first month; and 10 min. for the subsequent months. We estimate, on average, that projects remain in sample for 12 months.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 56,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 131 and 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21389 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Meeting AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, September 17, 2015, 2:00-3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and Friday, September 18, 2015, 8:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EDT. During this time, members will continue to work on various Council initiatives which include: Innovation, entrepreneurship and workforce talent. Additionally, the Council will discuss and identify next steps.

    DATES:

    Thursday, September 17, 2015, Time: 2:00-3:30 p.m. EDT Friday, September 18, 2015, Time: 8:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EDT ADDRESSES:

    Department of Commerce, Commerce Research Library, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. September 17-18, 2015, Teleconference: Dial-In: 1-888-469-3146, Passcode: 1371820.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Lenzer Kirk, Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 78018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-482-8001; fax: 202-273-4781. Please reference “NACIE September 17-18 Meeting” in the subject line of your correspondence.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council was chartered on November 10, 2009 to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States. NACIE's overarching focus is recommending transformational policies to the Secretary that will help U.S. communities, businesses, and the workforce become more globally competitive. The Council operates as an independent entity within the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), which is housed within the U.S. Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration. NACIE members are a diverse and dynamic group of successful entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors, as well as leaders from nonprofit organizations and academia.

    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Council's planned work initiatives in three focus areas: Workforce/talent, entrepreneurship, and innovation. The final agenda will be posted on the NACIE Web site at http://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/ prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent questions and comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the contact information below. Those unable to attend the meetings in person but wishing to listen to the proceedings can do so through a conference call line: 1-888-469-3146, passcode: 1371820 for both meeting days on September 17 and September 18. Copies of the meeting minutes will be available by request within 90 days of the meeting date.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Julie Lenzer Kirk, Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21459 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [8/12/2015 through 8/25/2015] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Western Plastics, LLC 304 South Miller Place, Oklahoma City, OK 73108 8/19/2015 The firm manufactures industrial plastic sheets for forming. Prairie Belting, Inc. 396 West Highway 2, Anthony, KS 67003 8/19/2015 The firm manufactures rubber belting and hosing. Raven Industries, Inc. 5049 Center Drive, Latrobe, PA 15650 8/19/2015 The firm manufactures toner for digital photocopiers, multifunction systems and digital wide format printers.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21462 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet September 15, 2015, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.

    Agenda Public Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman 2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security 3. TAC proposal to re-institute License Exception LVS for exports of items controlled by ECCNs 3A001.b.2.x and 3A001.b.3.x 4. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public 5. Export Enforcement update 6. Regulations update 7. Working group reports 8. Automated Export System update Closed Session 9. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than September 8, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 24, 2015, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21442 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security President's Export Council; Subcommittee on Export Administration; Notice of Open Meeting

    The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on September 14, 2015, 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons.

    Agenda 1. Opening remarks by the Vice Chair 2. Export Control Reform Update 3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public 4. Office of Foreign Assets Control Presentation 5. Self-jurisdiction and Self-classification Data and Discussion 6. SNAP-R Manual Updates Discussion 7. Subcommittee Updates

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first served basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at[email protected], no later than, September 8, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the PECSEA. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to PECSEA members, the PECSEA suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer.

    For more information, contact Yvette Springer on 202-482-2813.

    Dated: August 21, 2015. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21451 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-801] Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Russian Federation (Russia) with respect to Joint Stock Company PhosAgro-Cherepovets.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andre Gziryan or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-2201 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 14, 1987, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Soviet Union.1 Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the antidumping duty order was transferred to the individual members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.2 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we received a timely request for a new shipper review of the order from Joint Stock Company PhosAgro-Cherepovets (PhosAgro).3 PhosAgro certified that it is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request was based.4

    1See Antidumping Duty Order; Urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 52 FR 26367 (July 14, 1987).

    2See Solid Urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Transfer of the AD Order on Solid Urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic States and Opportunity to Comment, 57 FR 28828 (June 29, 1992).

    3See PhosAgro's new shipper request dated July 31, 2015.

    4See PhosAgro's new shipper request at Exhibit 1.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), PhosAgro certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI).5 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), PhosAgro certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the POI.6

    5Id.

    6Id.

    In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), PhosAgro submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.7

    7See PhosAgro's new shipper request at Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.

    Period of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the period of review (POR) for new shipper reviews initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month will be the 12-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, under this order, the POR is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

    Initiation of New Shipper Review

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(1), the Department finds that the request from PhosAgro meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for a shipment of solid urea from Russia produced and exported by PhosAgro.8 The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and final results of the review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued.9

    8See the memorandum to the file entitled “Solid Urea from the Russian Federation: Initiation Checklist for Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Joint Stock Company PhosAgro-Cherepovets” dated concurrently with this notice.

    9See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

    We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from PhosAgro, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because PhosAgro certified that it produced and exported subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for the request for a new shipper review, we will apply the bonding privilege to PhosAgro only for subject merchandise which was produced and exported by PhosAgro.

    To assist in its analysis of the bona fides of PhosAgro's sales, upon initiation of this new shipper review, the Department will require PhosAgro to submit on an ongoing basis complete transaction information concerning any sales of subject merchandise to the United States that were made subsequent to the POR.

    Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in the new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

    This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21503 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian or William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412 or (202) 482-2615, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 15, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the final results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China.1 The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013. The Department is issuing this notice to correct an inadvertent error in the Final Results. Specifically, the Department initiated a review of Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co. Ltd. (“Baishan Huafeng Wood”),2 and the company listed in the Final Results is also Baishan Huafeng Wood. However, the record reflects that the correct company name, and the company to which the Department assigned a separate rate, is Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co. Ltd. (“Baishan Huafeng Wooden”).3 Accordingly, we intended to include Baishan Huafeng Wooden, not Baishan Huafeng Wood, in the list of companies that received a separate rate during the POR as identified in our Final Results.

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 41476 (July 15, 2015) (“Final Results”).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 6147 (February 3, 2014).

    3See April 3, 2014 Separate Rate Certification for Baishan Huafeng.

    This correction to the final results of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: August 21, 2015. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21375 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-421-811] Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request by Ashland Specialty Ingredients, G.P. (Ashland), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from the Netherlands. Based on the information received, we preliminarily intend to revoke the Netherlands Order. 1 Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) (Netherlands Order).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Drury, or Angelica Townsend, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0195 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 31, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 11, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the AD order on CMC from the Netherlands.2 On July 8, 2015, in accordance with sections 751(b) and 751(d)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b), and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), Ashland, the petitioner and sole domestic producer of CMC, requested revocation of the Netherlands Order. Ashland requested that the Department conduct the CCR on an expedited basis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) and that the effective date of the revocation be July 1, 2014.

    2Id.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is all purified CMC, sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent.

    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no further interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

    On July 8, 2015, Ashland requested that the Department conduct the CCR on an expedited basis. Ashland stated that, as the sole U.S. producer of CMC, it accounts for all of the production of the domestic like product. Ashland also stated that it has no interest in the continuation of the Netherlands Order. 3

    3See Ashland's July 8, 2015, submission to the Department.

    Therefore, at the request of Ashland and in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 751(d)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), we are initiating this CCR on CMC from the Netherlands to determine whether revocation of the order is warranted with respect to this product. In addition, we determine that expedited action is warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), we find that the petitioner's affirmative statements of no interest constitutes good cause to conduct this review and we find that revocation of the order is appropriate for these preliminary results. Additionally, our decision to expedite this review by combining the notice of initiation and the preliminary results in a single notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) stems from the domestic industry's lack of interest in applying the Netherlands Order. If the final results of this changed circumstances review result in the revocation of this order, the Department intends that such revocation will be effective the first day of the most recent period not subject to administrative review, which is currently July 1, 2014.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments in response to these preliminary results not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.4 Rebuttal briefs, and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice.5 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed circumstance review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6 Interested parties who wish to comment on the preliminary results must file briefs electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).7 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document is due.

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

    7See 19 CFR 351.303 for general filing requirements.

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.8 Parties will be notified of the time and date of any hearing if requested.9

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c)

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    If final revocation occurs, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to end the suspension of liquidation for the merchandise covered by the revocation on the effective date of the notice of revocation and to release any cash deposit or bond.10 The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated AD duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review.

    10See 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4).

    This initiation and preliminary results of review notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), (4), and 19 CFR 351.222(g).

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21504 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Online Customer Relationship Management (CRM)/Performance Databases, the Online Phoenix Database, and the Online Opportunity Database AGENCY:

    Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Nakita Chambers, Program Manager, Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Development, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-0065, and email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    As part of its national service delivery system, MBDA awards cooperative agreements each year to fund the provision of business development services to eligible minority business enterprises (MBEs). The recipient of each cooperative agreement is competitively selected to operate one of the MBDA's Business Center programs. In accordance with the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), MBDA requires all center operators to report basic client information, service activities and progress on attainment of program goals via the Online CRM/Performance database. The data inputs into the CRM/Performance database originate from the client intake forms used by each center to collect information from each minority business enterprise that receives technical business assistance from the center. This data provides the baseline from which the CRM/Performance database is populated. The Online CRM/Performance Database is used to regularly monitor and evaluate the progress of the MBDA funded centers, to provide the Department and OMB with a summary of the quantitative information required to be submitted about government supported programs, and to implement the GPRA. This information is also summarized and included in the MBDA Annual Performance Report, which is made available to the public.

    In addition to the information collected from MBEs to provide service and performance reports, the MBDA Center award recipients are required to list MBEs to conduct business in the United States in the Online Phoenix Database. This listing is used to match those registered MBEs with opportunities entered in the Online Opportunity Database by public and private sector entities. The MBEs may also self-register via the Online Phoenix Database for notification of potential business opportunities.

    In 2012, the overall estimate of burden hours decreased for users under the newly adopted program structure as a result of the streamlining of certain administrative and reporting requirements. The MBDA Business Center programs will continue to use the Customer Relationship Management/Performance, Phoenix and Business Opportunity databases until the new program is redesigned during Fiscal Year 2016.

    Revision: In Fiscal Year 2015, MBDA has developed a new client intake and customer transaction forms for use in the business center program. The new forms include a statement regarding MBDA's intended use by MBDA and transfer of the information collected to other federal agencies for the purpose of conducting research and studies on minority businesses.

    The following new information will be provided on the MBDA Client Engagement Form: By submitting this form, your company agrees to allow the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) in Washington, D.C. to share this document, information contained therein, and any supplementary material provided by your company (collectively “Client Engagement Form”) on an as needed basis, with other United States Government agencies to carry out appropriate due diligence and more effectively advocate for your interests. The Client Engagement Form also may be used by MBDA and MBDA Business Centers for the purposes of conducting research, studies, and analysis consistent with the MBDA mission as stated in Executive Order 11625. The Client Engagement Form is considered business confidential and will not be shared with any other person or organization outside the U.S. Government unless the MBDA Headquarters is given permission to do so by your company. All business confidential information will be protected from disclosure to the extent permitted by law.

    The following new information will be provided on the Client Transaction Form: By submitting this form, your company agrees to allow the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) in Washington, D.C. to share this document, information contained therein, and any supplementary material provided by your company (collectively “Verification Form”) on an as needed basis, with other United States Government agencies to carry out appropriate due diligence and more effectively advocate for your interests. The Verification Form also may be used by MBDA and MBDA Business Centers for the purposes of conducting research, studies, and analysis consistent with the MBDA mission as stated in Executive Order 11625. The Verification Form is considered business confidential and will not be shared with any other person or organization outside the U.S. Government unless the MBDA Headquarters is given permission to do so by your company. All business confidential information will be protected from disclosure to the extent permitted by law.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information will be collected manually and electronically.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0640-0002.

    Form Number(s): 0640-002.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; Federal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,633.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 minute to 210 minutes, depending upon function.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,516.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: 0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21454 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE150 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public scoping meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold eight scoping hearings in September and October 2015 to solicit public input on a management action to prohibit the development of new, or expansion of existing directed fisheries on unmanaged forage species until adequate scientific information is available to promote ecosystem sustainability. The Council is also soliciting written comments through 11:59 p.m. on Friday October 2, 2015. The Council has not yet determined which type of action it will develop. The action could take the form of a new fishery management plan, an amendment to an existing fishery management plan, or another action.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held over several weeks between September 15, 2015 and October 1, 2015 as described below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Council will hold eight scoping meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates, times, and locations.

    Addresses for written comments: Written comments may be sent through mail, email, or fax through 11:59 p.m. on Friday October 2, 2015. Comments may be mailed to: Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. Comments may be faxed to: Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council at fax: (302) 674-5399. Comments may be emailed to Julia Beaty, Assistant Fishery Plan Coordinator, at [email protected] If sending comments through the mail, please write “unmanaged forage scoping comments” on the outside of the envelope. If sending comments through email or fax, please write “unmanaged forage scoping comments” in the subject line.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; Web site: www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255. More information, including background materials and information on meeting locations will be posted at www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The dates, times and locations of the scoping meetings are as follows:

    1. Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries, Washington Regional Office Hearing Room, 943 Washington Square Mall, Highway 17, Washington, NC 27889; telephone: (252) 946-6481.

    2. Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 6 p.m.-8 p.m., Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 4th Floor Meeting Room, 2600 Washington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; telephone: (757) 247-2200.

    3. Thursday, September 17, 2015, 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Congress Hall Hotel, 200 Congress Place, Cape May, NJ 08294; telephone: (844) 264-5030.

    4. Monday September 21, 2015. 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Kingsborough Community College, Building T-3, 2001 Oriental Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11235; telephone: (718) 368-5000.

    5. Monday, September 28, 2015, 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., University of Rhode Island, Bay Campus, Corless Auditorium, 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882; telephone: (401) 874-6222.

    6. Tuesday, September 29, 2015, 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Marine Resources, Hearing Room, 205 North Bell Mead Road, Suite 1, East Setauket, NY 11733; telephone: (631) 444-0430.

    7. Wednesday, September 30, 2015, 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Worcester County Library, Ocean Pines Branch, Meeting Room, 11107 Cathell Road, Berlin, MD 21811; telephone: (410) 208-4014.

    8. Thursday, October 1, 2015, 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Webinar. Information on how to connect to the webinar will be available on the events page of the Council Web site: www.mafmc.org/council-events/. There will be an audio only option which will require a phone connection.

    The goal of this action is to proactively protect the ecosystem role of unmanaged forage species. In this context, “unmanaged” refers to species not currently managed by the Mid-Atlantic, New England, or South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, or the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Council has not yet determined which type of action it will develop. The action could take the form of a new fishery management plan, an amendment to an existing fishery management plan, or another action.

    Scoping is the process of identifying issues, potential impacts, and a reasonable range of alternatives associated with a management action. Scoping provides the first and best opportunity for the public to make suggestions and raise concerns about new Council actions. Public comments early in the development of this action will help the Council identify effective management alternatives and issues of concern.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21447 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE148 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 Scallop Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (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 Advisors will review preliminary 2015 scallop survey results and discuss initial recommendations from the Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) for FY 2016 and FY 2017 (default) fishery specifications (Framework 27). The Advisors will also provide input on potential Council work priorities for 2016 related to the scallop fishery management plan, and potentially identify recommendations for prioritizing the various potential work items. Staff will review from [draft analyses prepared for Amendment 19,] an action to address timing issues for fishery specifications, and advisors will identify preferred alternative recommendations. Staff will review progress on planning of a future workshop to discuss issues about potential inshore depletion. Finally, staff will review preliminary input from the PDT based on a Council motion to evaluate how to potentially improve information collected by observers on discard mortality and highgrading. Other business may be discussed.

    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 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21446 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE136 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, September 16-17, 2015, from 9 a.m. on September 16 and conclude by 2 p.m. on September 17. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton Annapolis, 210 Holiday Court, Annapolis, MD 21401; telephone: (410) 224-3150.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda items to be discussed at the SSC meeting include: Review fishery performance reports and recommend multi-year ABC specifications for spiny dogfish; receive report of peer review of data limited methods applied to black sea bass for potential changes to current and future ABC specifications; discuss research prioritization and five-year research plan; discuss outcomes from the Fifth National SSC Workshop; receive update on sex-specific research and population modeling for summer flounder; and review and discussion on how the SSC applies coefficient of variation levels to overfishing limit specifications.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21445 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE151 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a two-day meeting of its Reef Fish Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, September 16-17, 2015, starting at 8:30 a.m. each day and will adjourn at 12 noon on Thursday.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the conference room at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's office; see below for address.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Carrie Simmons, Executive Deputy Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The meeting will begin with introductions, and will hold elections for a new chair and vice-chair. The Advisory Panel (AP) will then adopt the agenda, review and approve minutes from the July 29, 2014 Reef Fish AP meeting and July 30, 2014 Red Snapper AP meeting. Council staff will review the scope of work commissioned for this advisory panel. The AP will review and provide recommendations on Public Hearing Draft Amendment 39—Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper, and recent stock assessments on red grouper and gray triggerfish. The AP will also review and discuss Public Hearing Draft—Joint Amendment to Require Electronic Reporting for Charter Vessels and Headboats; an Options Paper on a Framework Action setting the gag recreational season and gag and black grouper minimum size limits; review of a Draft Framework Action to modify gear restrictions for yellowtail snapper; a Draft Options Paper on an amendment defining west Florida's shelf hogfish stock, and setting the annual catch limits (ACL) and status determination criteria; a Draft Options Paper to modify mutton snapper ACLs and establish commercial and recreational management measures. Lastly, the Advisory Panel will review Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), a document on South Florida Management Issues, and SEDAR schedule; and will discuss Other Business, if any.

    —Meeting Adjourns—

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “Reef Fish AP meeting 09-2015”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21448 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE100 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 14122, 14585 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Janice Straley, University of Alaska Southeast Sitka Campus, 1332 Seward Ave., Sitka, Alaska 99835, and Adam A. Pack, Ph.D., Departments of Psychology and Biology, University of Hawaii at Hilo, 200 West Kawili Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720, have been issued minor amendments to Scientific Research Permit Nos. 14122 and 14585, respectively.

    ADDRESSES:

    The amendments and related documents are available for review 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hubard or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The requested amendments have been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    Permit No. 14122, issued on July 14, 2010 (75 FR 43150), authorizes research in Alaskan waters through July 31, 2015. The research is focused on humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm (Physeter macrocephalus), and killer whales (Orcinus orca) and includes photo-identification, biopsy sampling, multiple tag types, and active and passive acoustics. The minor amendment (No. 14122-01) extends the duration of the permit through July 31, 2016, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Permit No. 14585, issued on July 14, 2010 (75 FR 43150), authorizes research in the Eastern, Western and Central North Pacific Ocean, primarily Hawaii and Alaska, through July 31, 2015. The research is focused on humpback whales and includes photo-identification, underwater videogrammetry, underwater videography, passive acoustic recordings, Crittercam studies, and biopsy sampling. The minor amendment (No. 14585-01) extends the duration of the permit through July 31, 2016, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21391 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD856 Marine Mammals; File No. 18902 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Colleen Reichmuth, Ph.D., Long Marine Laboratory, University of California at Santa Cruz, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on pinnipeds in captivity.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 30, 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. 18902 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. 18902 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 Courtney Smith, (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 applicant proposes to conduct comparative psychological and physiological studies with captive California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), spotted seals (Phoca largha), ringed seals (Pusa hispida), and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) at Long Marine Laboratory (Santa Cruz, CA) and the Alaska SeaLife Center (Seward, AK). Up to four individuals per species may be studied at both facilities combined over the duration of the permit. Animals may participate in daily activities using behaviors established through operant conditioning and may refuse participation in an activity at any time. For psychological assessments, pinnipeds are trained to voluntarily participate in the research on land and in water. Controlled sensory cues are used to evaluate sensory and cognitive performance with an emphasis on the auditory sense to address conservation issues related to ocean noise. Electrophysiological methods may be used to monitor passive neuronal responses during exposure to similar sounds. Behavioral experiments will test hearing sensitivity in the presence or following the cessation of noise to determine how exposure to anthropogenic noise may influence the ability to detect various sounds.

    The pinnipeds will also participate in physiological assessments to study their general biology including growth and development, nutritional requirements, health status, and environmental tolerance. Open-flow respirometry methods will be used to gather metabolic data from animals trained to rest and breathe under a plastic dome. Daily to weekly, animals may participate in voluntary physiological procedures including weighing, measuring, ultrasound, thermographic imaging, and sampling of hair, skin, feces, urine, and naturally shed vibrissae. Each month (up to 12 times per year), animals may be fed benign fecal markers and blood samples may be obtained. The applicant requests a 5-year permit.

    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. 2015-21392 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE009 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 18722, 18897, 19425, and 19497 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permits.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that permits have been issued to the following entities to receive, import, and export specimens of marine mammals for scientific research:

    Permit No. 18722: Cornell University, 157 Biotechnology Building, Ithaca, NY 14850 [Responsible Party: Sharron Mitchell, Ph.D.];

    Permit No. 18897: Kathleen Colegrove, Ph.D., University of Illinois, College of Veterinary Medicine, Zoological Pathology Program, LUMC Room 0745, Building 101, 2160 South First Street, Maywood, IL 60153;

    Permit No. 19425: Melissa McKinney, Ph.D., University of Connecticut, Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering, 3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, U-4210, Storrs, CT 06269; and

    Permit No. 19497: University of Florida, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases and Pathology V3-100, VAB, PO BOX 110880, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0880 [Responsible Party: Thomas B. Waltzek, D.V.M., Ph.D.].

    ADDRESSES:

    The permits and related documents are available for review 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The following Analysts at (301) 427-8401: Rosa L. González (Permit No. 19497), Carrie Hubard (Permit No. 19425), Brendan Hurley (Permit Nos. 18722 and 18897) and Jennifer Skidmore (Permit Nos. 18722, 18897, 19425, and 19497).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 26, 2015, notice was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 36768) that four requests for permits to receive, import, and export specimens of marine mammals for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named applicants. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

    Permit No. 18722 authorizes Cornell University to receive, import, or export unlimited samples from up to 2000 pinnipeds (excluding walrus) and 2000 cetaceans world-wide. These samples will be used for genotyping on marine mammals including trait mapping, population/ecological studies, and germplasm characterization. No live animals would be harassed or taken, lethally or otherwise, under the authorized permit. The permit is valid through August 10, 2020.

    Permit No. 18897 authorizes Dr. Colegrove to import unlimited biological samples from up to 100 individual cetaceans and up to 100 individual pinnipeds (except walrus) world-wide. All samples (bones and organ tissue samples) are being imported for diagnostic testing to determine the causes of outbreaks or unusual natural mortalities, the ecology of diseases in free-ranging animals, or unexpected mortalities in captive populations. Samples will be from animals found deceased or euthanized in nature, collected opportunistically during the animals' capture by other researchers possessing permits for such activities, or legally held in captivity (including those held for rehabilitation) outside the U.S. No live animals would be harassed or taken, lethally or otherwise, under the authorized permit. The permit is valid through August 10, 2020.

    Permit No. 19425 authorizes Dr. McKinney to study marine mammal contaminant levels, specifically using fatty acid and stable isotopes to examine diets and contaminant loads and how they are affected by climate change. Tissue samples from cetaceans and pinnipeds may come from remote biopsy sampling, captured animals, and animals collected during subsistence harvests and may originate in the United States, Canada, and Greenland/Denmark. Samples (up to 50 of each species group per year, except for those species specified below) will be analyzed, with a focus on the following Arctic species: Ringed seal (30 per year), bearded seal (10 per year), and narwhal (10 per year). No live animals would be harassed or taken, lethally or otherwise, under the authorized permit. The permit is valid through August 1, 2020.

    File No. 19497 authorizes the University of Florida to receive, import, and export marine mammal tissue and other specimen materials (e.g., body fluids) to research the etiologies and cofactors of emerging marine mammal infectious diseases, utilizing standard molecular and sequencing approaches. Unlimited samples from up to 300 individual cetaceans and 700 individual pinnipeds (excluding walrus) are authorized to be received, imported, or exported annually on an opportunistic basis. They will be collected by others under separate existing permits and may be obtained from the following sources: (1) Animals killed during legal U.S. or foreign subsistence harvests; (2) animals stranded alive or dead in foreign countries; (3) animals that died incidental to commercial fishing operations in the U.S. where such taking is legal (i.e., bycatch); (4) animals that died incidental to commercial fishing operations in foreign countries where such taking is legal; (5) animals in captivity where samples were taken as a result of routine husbandry procedures or under separate permit; and (6) samples from other authorized researchers or collections in academic, federal, state or other institutions involved in marine mammal research in the U.S. or abroad. Samples collected from stranded animals in the U.S. and received under separate authorization may be exported and re-imported. No takes of live animals are requested or would be permitted. The permit is valid through July 31, 2020.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    As required by the ESA, issuance of these permits was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21390 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Multistakeholder Process To Promote Collaboration on Vulnerability Research Disclosure AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene meetings of a multistakeholder process concerning the collaboration between security researchers and software and system developers and owners to address security vulnerability disclosure. This Notice announces the first meeting, which is scheduled for September 29, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 29, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Booth Auditorium at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Boalt Hall, Bancroft Way and Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94720-7200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allan Friedman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4281; email; [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: On March 19, 2015, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, working with the Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF), issued a Request for Comment to “identify substantive cybersecurity issues that affect the digital ecosystem and digital economic growth where broad consensus, coordinated action, and the development of best practices could substantially improve security for organizations and consumers.” 1 This Request built on earlier work from the Department, including the 2011 Green Paper Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy, 2 as well as comments the Department had received on related issues.3

    1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Request for Public Comment, Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem, 80 FR 14360, Docket No. 150312253-5253-01 (Mar. 19, 2015), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/cybersecurity_rfc_03192015.pdf.

    2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy (June 2011) (Green Paper), available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/Cybersecurity_Green-Paper_FinalVersion.pdf.

    3See Comments Received in Response to Federal Register Notice Developing a Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Docket No. 140721609-4609-01, available at: http://csrc.nist.gov/cyberframework/rfi_comments_10_2014.html.

    The IPTF asked for suggestions of security challenges that an NTIA-convened multistakeholder group could address, and offered a dozen potential topics for explicit feedback.4 We received 35 comments from a range of stakeholders, including trade associations, large companies, cybersecurity startups, civil society organizations and independent computer security experts.5 The comments highlight a range of issues that might be addressed through the multistakeholder process and suggest various ways in which the group's work could be structured.

    4 Request for Public Comment, supra note 1.

    5 NTIA has posted the public comments received at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2015/comments-stakeholder-engagement-cybersecurity-digital-ecosystem.

    Of the topics suggested, the challenge of collaboration between security researchers and system and software vendors stands out as a critical issue where reaching some consensus on shared goals, principles, and practices is both feasible and necessary. On July 9, 2015, after reviewing the comments, NTIA announced that the first issue to be addressed would be “collaboration on vulnerability research disclosure.” 6 While this is not the first discussion on the topic, stakeholders have presented the case that the time is right to make further progress among ecosystem players by achieving consensus and a commitment to baseline principles and accepted practices.

    6 NTIA, Enhancing the Digital Economy Through Collaboration on Vulnerability Research Disclosure (July 9, 2015), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/enhancing-digital-economy-through-collaboration-vulnerability-research-disclosure.

    This issue is commonly referred to as the question of “vulnerability disclosure.” For as long as humans have created software there have been software “bugs.” 7 Many of these bugs can introduce vulnerabilities, leaving the users of the systems and software at risk. The nature of these risks vary, and mitigating these risks requires various efforts from the developers and owners of these systems. Security researchers of all varieties, including academics, professionals, and those who simply enjoy thinking about security may identify these bugs for a number of reasons, and in a wide range of contexts. How researchers should handle these vulnerabilities, and how vendors should work with researchers has been the matter of active debate for many years, since before the turn of the millennium.8 Several points have been actively debated. Researchers have expressed concerns that vendors do not respond in a timely fashion, leaving users at risk. Vendors worry about the time, expense, and added complexity of addressing every vulnerability, as well as the risks introduced by potentially disclosing vulnerabilities before they can be patched or mitigated. Given that all good faith actors care about security, there is room to find common ground.

    7See, e.g., Peter Wayner, Smithsonian Honors the Original Bug in the System, N.Y. Times (Dec. 7, 1997), available at: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/120497bug.html.

    8 For a bibliography of research, proposed standards, online discussions and other resources, see University of Oulu Secure Programming Group, Juhani Eronen & Ari Takanen eds., Vulnerability Disclosure Publications and Discussion Tracking, available at: https://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/Disclosure_tracking (last visited Aug. 20, 2015).

    The goal of this process is neither to replicate past discussions nor duplicate existing initiatives. As information security is gaining more attention in the collective consciousness due to a series of high profile cybersecurity incidents and disclosed vulnerabilities, more firms and organizations are considering how to engage with third party researchers, just as they are exploring other security tools and processes. The security community itself has worked to promote better collaboration. More software vendors and system owners are offering “bug bounty” programs that reward researchers for sharing vulnerability information. In addition to enterprises that buy vulnerabilities and sell them to vendors, new business models have emerged to help organizations develop and manage bug bounty programs. Leading experts at the International Standards Organization have developed, and are continuing to revise, a formal standard for vendors on how to manage incoming vulnerability information.9 NTIA's process is meant to complement these ongoing developments, as well as existing standards and practices developed by other organizations, by bringing together all relevant stakeholders to find consensus on the overarching goals and principles for successful sharing and handling of vulnerability information. By coming together at this critical juncture, stakeholders can expand norms and expectations for the adoption, adaptation, and innovation of practices and standards.

    9 ISO Standard 29147, Vulnerability Disclosure Overview (2014), available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=45170.

    The goal of this process will be to develop a broad, shared understanding of the overlapping interests between security researchers and the vendors and owners of products discovered to be vulnerable, and establish a consensus about voluntary principles to promote better collaboration. The question of how vulnerabilities can and should be disclosed will be a critical part of the discussion, as will how vendors receive and respond to this information. However, disclosure is only one aspect of successful collaboration. One goal of the overall NTIA process is to promote a digital economy that more strongly emphasizes security and develops community-driven or market-based forces to better and more rapidly secure the digital ecosystem.

    Stakeholders will determine the exact nature of the outcome of this process. Since it is unlikely that a one-size-fits all solution will be feasible in this dynamic space, stakeholders will need to determine how to scope and organize the work through sub-groups or other means. Success of the process will be evaluated by the extent to which stakeholders embrace and implement the consensus findings within their individual practices or organizations. Although the stakeholders determine the outcome of the process, it is important to note that the process will not result in a regulatory policy or new law, nor focus on law enforcement or other non-commercial government use of vulnerability data.

    Matters To Be Considered: The September 29, 2015, meeting will be the first in a series of NTIA-convened multistakeholder discussions concerning collaboration on vulnerability disclosure. Subsequent meetings will follow on a schedule determined by those participating in the first meeting. Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop voluntary principles guiding the collaboration between vendors and researchers about vulnerability information. The multistakeholder process will involve hearing and understanding the perspectives of diverse stakeholders, from a wide range of both vendors and researchers, while seeking a consensus that enables collaboration for a more secure digital ecosystem.

    The September 29, 2015, meeting is intended to bring stakeholders together to begin to share the range of views on how vulnerability information is shared by researchers, how it is received and used by vendors, and to establish more concrete goals and structure of the process. The objectives of this first meeting are to: (1) Briefly share different perspectives on how vulnerability information is shared, received, and resolved; (2) briefly review perceived challenges in successful collaborations; (3) engage stakeholders in a discussion of high-priority substantive issues stakeholders believe should be addressed; (4) engage stakeholders in a discussion of logistical issues, including internal structures such as a small drafting committee or various working groups, and the location and frequency of future meetings; and (5) identify concrete goals and stakeholder work following the first meeting.

    The main objective of further meetings will be to encourage and facilitate continued discussion among stakeholders to build consensus around the principles guiding successful collaboration. This discussion may include circulation of stakeholder-developed straw-man drafts and discussion of the appropriate scope of the initiative. Stakeholders may also agree on procedural work plans for the group, including additional meetings or modified logistics for future meetings. NTIA suggests that stakeholders consider setting clear deadlines for a working draft, and consider a phase for external review of this draft, before reconvening to take account of external feedback.

    More information about stakeholders' work will be available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities.

    Time and Date: NTIA will convene the first meeting of the multistakeholder process to promote collaboration on vulnerability research disclosure on September 29, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities, for the most current information.

    Place: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom in the Booth Auditorium at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Boalt Hall, Bancroft Way and Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94720-7200. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities, for the most current information.

    Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. To assist the agency in determining space and webcast technology requirements, NTIA requests that interested persons pre-register for the meeting at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities.

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to each meeting. The meetings will also be webcast. Requests for real-time captioning of the webcast or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to each meeting. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meetings through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meetings are subject to change.

    Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities, for the most current information.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21500 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Madrid Protocol ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the extension of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0051 comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Catherine Cain, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8946; or by email at [email protected] with “0651-0051 comment” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., which provides for the Federal registration of trademarks, service marks, collective trademarks and service marks, collective membership marks, and certification marks. Individuals and businesses that use or intend to use such marks in commerce may file an application to register the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

    The Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (“Madrid Protocol”) is an international treaty that allows a trademark owner to seek registration in any of the participating countries by filing a single international application. The International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland, administers the international registration system. The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002 amended the Trademark Act to provide that: (1) The owner of a U.S. application or registration may seek protection of its mark in any of the participating countries by submitting a single international application to the IB through the USPTO and (2) the holder of an international registration may request an extension of protection of the international registration to the United States. The Madrid Protocol became effective in the United States on November 2, 2003, and is implemented under 15 U.S.C. 1141 et seq. and 37 CFR part 2 and Part 7.

    An international application submitted through the USPTO must be based on an active U.S. application or registration and must be filed by the owner of the application or registration. The USPTO reviews the international application to certify that it corresponds to the data contained in the existing U.S. application or registration before forwarding the international application to the IB. The IB then reviews the international application to determine whether the Madrid filing requirements have been met and the required fees have been paid. If the international application is unacceptable, the IB will send a notice of irregularity to the USPTO and the applicant. The applicant must respond to the irregularities to avoid abandonment, unless a response from the USPTO is required. After any irregularities are corrected and the application is accepted, the IB registers the mark, publishes the registration in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, and sends a certificate to the holder.

    When the mark is registered, the IB notifies each country designated in the application of the request for extension of protection. Each designated country then examines the request under its own laws. Once an international registration has been issued, the holder may also file subsequent designations to request an extension of protection to additional countries.

    Under Section 71 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141(k), a registered extension of protection to the United States will be cancelled unless the holder of the international registration periodically files affidavits of continued use in commerce or excusable nonuse. The first affidavit must be filed on or between the fifth- and sixth-year anniversaries of the date on which the USPTO registers an extension of protection.

    This collection includes the information necessary for the USPTO to process applications for international registration and related requests under the Madrid Protocol. The USPTO provides electronic forms for filing the items in this information collection online (except for the Request to Record an Assignment or Restriction of a Holder's Right to Dispose of an International Registration) using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available through the USPTO Web site.

    Applicants may also submit the items in this collection on paper or by using the forms provided by the IB, which are available on the WIPO Web site. The IB requires Applications for International Registration and Applications for Subsequent Designation that are filed on paper to be submitted on the official IB forms.

    II. Method of Collection

    Electronically if applicants submit the information using the TEAS forms. By mail or hand delivery if applicants choose to submit the information in paper form.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0051.

    IC Instruments: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Existing Information Collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,557 responses per year. Of this total, the USPTO expects that 16,474 responses will be submitted electronically via the TEAS system and 83 will be submitted on paper.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 17 minutes to one hour and 15 minutes (0.28 to 1.25 hours) to complete the information in this collection, including the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the forms or documents, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 4,918.45 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $1,913,277.05. The USPTO expects that an attorney will complete the instruments associated with this information collection. The professional hourly rate for an attorney is $389. When this hourly rate is applied to the 4,918.45 burden hours projected annually for this collection, the USPTO estimates $1,913,277.05 per year for the total hourly costs associated with respondents.

    The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.

    IC No. Information collection instrument Estimated time for response
  • (minutes)
  • (a)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • (b)
  • Estimated
  • annual burden hours
  • (a) × (b)/
  • 60 = (c)
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • 1 Application for International Registration (PTO-2131 TEAS) 17 8,010 2,269.50 389 1 Application for International Registration (paper, no form) 32 33 17.60 389 2 Application for Subsequent Designation (PTO-2132 TEAS) 17 1,236 350.20 389 2 Application for Subsequent Designation (paper, no form) 22 2 0.73 389 3 Response to Notice of Irregularity (PTO-2133 TEAS) 18 1,390 417.00 389 3 Response to Notice of Irregularity (paper, no form) 33 1 0.55 389 4 Replacement Request (TEAS Global Form) 30 20 10.00 389 4 Replacement Request (paper, no form) 45 1 0.75 389 5 Request to Record an Assignment or Restriction of a Holder's Right to Dispose of an International Registration (paper, no form) 30 5 2.50 389 6 Transformation Request (TEAS Global form) 18 3 0.90 389 6 Transformation Request (paper, no form) 33 1 0.55 389 6 Transformation Request (TEAS RF Global form) 20 30 10.00 389 7 Petition to Director to Review Denial of Certification of International Application (TEAS Global form) 60 100 100.00 389 7 Petition to Director to Review Denial of Certification of International Application (paper, no form) 75 20 25.00 389 8 Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse of Mark in Commerce Under Section 71 (PTO-1663 TEAS) 18 3,411 1023.30 389 8 Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse of Mark in Commerce Under Section 71 (paper, no form) 23 10 3.83 389 9 Combined Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse and Incontestability Under Sections 71 and 15 (PTO-1683 TEAS) 18 2,274 682.20 389 Combined Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse and Incontestability Under Sections 71 and 15 (paper, no form) 23 10 3.83 389 Total 16,557 4,918.45

    Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $2,175,480.36. This collection has annual (non-hour) costs in the form of postage costs and filing fees.

    Postage Costs

    Customers may incur postage costs when submitting some of the items covered by this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO expects that approximately 99 percent of the responses in this collection will be submitted electronically. Of the remaining 1 percent, the vast majority—98 percent—will be submitted by mail, for a total of 82 mailed submissions. The average first-class USPS postage cost for a mailed submission will be 98 cents. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the postage costs for the mailed submissions in this collection will total $80.36.

    Filing Fees

    The USPTO charges fees for processing international applications and related requests under the Madrid Protocol as set forth in 37 CFR 2.6 and 37 CFR 7.6. Most of these fees are charged per class of goods or services; therefore, the total fees can vary depending on the number of classes. Based on the minimum fee of one class per relevant document, the USPTO estimates that the total filing fees in the form of USPTO processing fees associated with this collection will be approximately $2,175,400 per year, as calculated in the accompanying table.

    IC No. Item Estimated annual responses
  • (a)
  • Fee amount
  • (b)
  • Estimated annual filing costs
  • (a) × (b) = (c)
  • 1 Application for International Registration (for certifying an international application based on a single basic application or registration, per international class) (PTO-2131 TEAS) 4,110 $100.00 $411,000.00 1 Application for International Registration (for certifying an international application based on a single basic application or registration, per international class) (paper, no form) 17 100.00 1,700.00 1 Application for International Registration (for certifying an international application based on more than one basic application or registration, per international class) (PTO-2131 TEAS) 3,900 150.00 585,000.00 1 Application for International Registration (for certifying an international application based on more than one basic application or registration, per international class) (paper, no form) 16 150.00 2,400.00 2 Application for Subsequent Designation (PTO-2132 TEAS) 1,236 100.00 123,600.00 2 Application for Subsequent Designation (paper, no form) 2 100.00 200.00 3 Response to Notice of Irregularity (PTO-2133 TEAS) 1,390 0.00 0.00 3 Response to Notice of Irregularity (paper, no form) 1 0.00 0.00 4 Replacement Request (per international class) (TEAS Global form) 20 100.00 2,000.00 4 Replacement Request (per international class) (paper, no form) 1 100.00 100.00 5 Request to Record an Assignment or Restriction of a Holder's Right to Dispose of an International Registration (paper, no form) 5 100.00 500.00 6 Transformation Request (per international class) (TEAS Global form) 3 325.00 975.00 6 Transformation Request (per international class) (paper, no form) 1 375.00 375.00 6 Transformation Request (per international class) (TEAS RF Global form) 30 275.00 8,250.00 7 Petition to Director to Review Denial of Certification of International Application (TEAS Global form) 100 100.00 10,000.00 7 Petition to Director to Review Denial of Certification of International Application (paper, no form) 20 100.00 2,000.00 8 Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse of Mark in Commerce Under Section 71 (per international class) (PTO-1553 TEAS) 3,411 100.00 341,100.00 8 Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse of Mark in Commerce Under Section 71 (per international class) (paper, no form) 10 100.00 1,000.00 9 Combined Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse and Incontestability Under Sections 71 and 15 (per international class) (PTO-1583 TEAS) 2,274 300.00 682,200.00 9 Combined Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse and Incontestability Under Sections 71 and 15 (per international class) (paper, no form) 10 $300.00 $3,000.00 Total 16,557 $2,175,400.00

    Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs ($80.36) and filing fees ($2,175,400), will total $2,175,480.36.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21512 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective 09/29/2015.

    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: Addition

    On 7/10/2015 (80 FR 39759-39760), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is 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 provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the 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 service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Equipment and Facility Support Service Service Is Mandatory for: U.S. Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Complex; 6038 Aspen Avenue; Hill AFB, UT Mandatory Source of Supply: Beacon Group SW, Inc., Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Air Force, FA8224 OL HPZI PZIM; Hill AFB, UT Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21477 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Juvenile Justice Reentry Education Program: Opening Doors to College and Careers Through Career and Technical Education AGENCY:

    Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information: Juvenile Justice Reentry Education Program: Opening Doors to College and Careers through Career and Technical Education (JJ Reentry CTE Program) Notice inviting applications for new awards in fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.051A.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: August 31, 2015.

    Date of Pre-Application Meeting: September 9, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 30, 2015.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 29, 2015.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of this program is to improve outcomes for justice-involved youth through the provision of career and technical education (CTE) programs, reentry services, and post-release CTE and employment training opportunities for juveniles in and exiting from juvenile justice confinement.

    Background: On any given day, more than 60,000 young people under age 21 are confined in juvenile justice facilities throughout the United States.1 Youths involved in the juvenile justice system typically have a history of poor school attendance, grade retention, or disengagement from school due to academic failure and school disciplinary issues. These youths also have lower literacy and numeracy skills than their peers, and many are eligible for special education services.2 Less than 20 percent are estimated to have obtained their General Educational Development (GED) or high school diploma.3

    1 National Report Series Bulletin. Aug. 2014. “Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2011.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/246826.pdf.

    2 Leone, Peter, and Lois Weinberg. 2012. “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems.” Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. pp. 10-11. cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EducationalNeedsofChildrenandYouth_May2010.pdf.

    3 Osgood, D. Wayne, E. Michael Foster, and Mark E. Courtney. 2010. “Vulnerable Populations and the Transition to Adulthood.” The Future of Children 20 (1): pp. 209-229.

    Many justice-involved youths come from families and neighborhoods considered high risk for involvement not only in the juvenile justice system, but also in the child welfare system. Commonly referred to as cross-over youths (defined as youth who often alternate between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems), these youths often have suffered abuse and neglect. Many also have the additional barriers of mental health and substance abuse problems. These issues not only put them at a greater risk for offending, but complicate service delivery once they enter the juvenile justice system.4

    4 Bonnie, Richard J., Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie Schuck. 2013. “Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach.” Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies.

    Youths involved in the juvenile justice system are often “hidden” from the public educational systems because they may not be enrolled in local district schools. As a result, the responsibility for these students' education becomes diffused or ignored and the students' academic outcomes are no longer a priority. Also, agencies sometimes duplicate or fragment services due to various inefficiencies, conflicting program implementation requirements, and other issues.5

    5 Leone, Peter, and Weinberg, Lois, Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2012. pp. 2-4. http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EducationalNeedsofChildrenandYouth_May2010.pdf.

    The most recent Census of Juveniles in Residential Treatment found that approximately 1,470,000 youths were arrested and slightly more than 61,000 were confined in 2011. The majority of these youths were males between the ages of 15 and 17. Blacks comprised more than half of the confined population, followed in descending order by Whites, Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.6 Information on length of stay is not collected at the national level, but studies show that length of stay can vary from less than 60 days to well over a year.7

    6 Sickmund, Melissa T., T.J. Sladky, Wei Kang, and Charles Puzzanchera. 2013. Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp.

    7 The Census of Juveniles in Residential Treatment survey documented that 49 percent of youths had been confined for 60 days or less; 29 percent had been confined for 61 to 180 days; and 7 percent had been confined for more than a year (Sickmund et al. 2013).

    Once released, many justice-involved youths do not return to school. Their juvenile justice placements often create severe disruptions in their education, for the following reasons:

    • Educational credits from juvenile justice facilities may not be accepted at the student's public school when they return.

    • Juvenile justice facility schools often do a poor job of administering education.

    • Records may not transfer promptly from school to facility or between facilities.

    • Students returning from the juvenile justice system are often rerouted into alternative-education programs or treated as “troublemakers.”

    • Youths returning to school after placement often face a host of social challenges and stigmas.8

    8 Juvenile Law Center. March 12, 2014. Lessons from “Kids for Cash,” Part 5: Disruptions in Education Disrupt Lives. www.jlc.org/blog/lessons-kids-cash-part-5-disruptions-education-disrupt-lives.

    Many youths in the juvenile justice population have had little employment experience before confinement. Their employment challenges often intensify postrelease, with many struggling to find and keep jobs.9 This is particularly true if youths' records have not been expunged; if they have not been able to earn an educational credential; or if they have a disability.10 Having been out of the labor force for a period of time also puts justice-involved youths at a disadvantage. In addition to lacking technical skills and work experience, these youths lack critical employability skills, sometimes called “soft skills” or “workforce readiness skills,” which are the general skills necessary for success in the labor market, for all industries and at all career levels.11

    9 Wald, Michael, and Tia Martinez. 2003. “Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country's Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds.” Stanford, CA: Hewlett Foundation.

    10 Waintrup, Miriam G., and Deanne Unrah. 2008. “Career Development Programming Strategies for Transitioning Incarcerated Adolescents to the World of Work.” The Journal of Correctional Education 59 (2): pp 127-144.

    11 See cte.ed.gov/employabilityskills/index.php/framework/.

    The lack of transition planning for juveniles makes successful reentry and integration into the community extremely difficult. Service providers often receive inadequate professional development and specialized transition training. Due to a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, service providers often are unprepared to provide appropriate transition services.12

    12 Leone, Peter, and Weinberg, Lois, Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2012. pp. 19-22. http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EducationalNeedsofChildrenandYouth_May2010.pdf.

    Information on recidivism rates is not collected at the national level because States use different definitions of recidivism. However, we know that justice-involved youths are at high risk for recidivism. The Annie Casey Foundation found that studies of youths released from residential corrections programs indicate that 70 to 80 percent of those youths are rearrested within 3 years. Studies also find that 38 to 58 percent of youths released from juvenile corrections facilities are found guilty of new offenses (as a juvenile or an adult) within 2 years and 45 to 72 percent within 3 years.13

    13 Mendel, Richard A. 2011. “No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration.” Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. www.aecf.org/resources/no-place-for-kids-full-report/.

    It has become clear that no single agency can address the myriad needs of justice-involved youth. Justice-involved youths often are involved with multiple systems of care and their needs transcend professional boundaries and agency mandates. Historically, the juvenile justice system has worked in isolation, with inadequate communication and collaboration among agencies serving youths both within facilities and between facilities and the community. The lack of coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders has been a major barrier to addressing the poor education, employment, and well-being outcomes for justice-involved youths.14

    14 Leone, Peter, and Weinberg, Lois, Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2012. Pp. 18-20 and 47-51. http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EducationalNeedsofChildrenandYouth_May2010.pdf

    The past decade has seen increased funding to improve programs, services, and outcomes for justice-involved youths. Multiple Federal agencies, including the Departments of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), Health and Human Services (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institutes of Health), Labor (Employment and Training Administration), and Education (Office for Civil Rights, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education), have taken on the issue of juvenile justice reform. Significant Federal funding has been dedicated to this issue, such as funding under the Second Chance Act and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) (recently reauthorized as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA), 29 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.). Federal and State partnerships with the philanthropic community, such as the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's “Models for Change” initiative, have also spurred innovation and reform in the juvenile justice system.

    Just as juvenile justice reform efforts have intensified in the past decade, so too have efforts to improve the effectiveness of workforce education and training programs. The career pathways approach to workforce development is the most recent expression of efforts to meet workforce and industry demands through focused education and training.15 Career pathways link education, training, and support services to enable individuals to secure industry-relevant certification, obtain employment within an industry or occupational sector, and advance to successively higher levels of education and employment in that sector. Advanced education and training are now requirements for many jobs and professional careers. This has led to shifts in the ways in which public agencies design CTE and workforce programs and collaborate with partners across systems.

    15 “Career Pathways Toolkit: Six Key Elements for Success” (Toolkit), Social Policy Research Associates for the U.S. Department of Labor, September 2011, pp 8-9.

    In this spirit of cross-system collaboration, in recent years, Federal agencies and a variety of national, State, and local stakeholders have worked together to encourage the development of career pathways. At the Federal level, three Federal agencies, the U.S. Departments of Education (ED or the Department), Health and Human Services, and Labor, have led an interagency effort to advance career pathway systems,16 which has grown to include the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Energy. WIOA also promotes a career pathways approach to workforce development, stressing cross-agency workforce, education, and human services systems-building, and coordinated service delivery to create career pathways.17 In addition, section 129 of WIOA, 29 U.S.C. 3164, authorizes youth workforce investment activities that support further education and employment training for in-school and out-of-school youths, including justice-involved youths.

    16 See www.careertech.org/sites/default/files/Joint_Letter_Career_Pathways.pdf.

    17www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ128/pdf/PLAW-113publ128.pdf.

    OCTAE has led the career pathways interagency effort for ED because CTE and career pathways are clearly interrelated. Both CTE and career pathways are informed by local labor market trends and designed to meet employer needs. For many, secondary CTE programs are the first point of entry into a career pathway.

    CTE will be the primary education focus of projects funded under this grant competition. Studies of incarcerated adults have suggested that participating in CTE may reduce parole violations and recidivism rates and increase the likelihood of employment after release, in addition to promoting the acquisition of knowledge and skills. While similar research for justice-involved youths is limited, CTE potentially may offer these benefits to confined juveniles as well as adults.18

    18 Davis, Lois M., Steele, Jennifer L. et el., “Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation.” Rand Corporation, 2014. pp 47-50. www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR564/RAND_RR564.pdf.

    CTE programs, commonly referred to as “vocational education” in the juvenile justice setting, help students acquire the skills and knowledge they need for success in further education and careers. Generally, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-270), 20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. (Perkins IV or Act),19 defines CTE in section 3(5), 20 U.S.C. 2302(5), as organized educational activities that offer a sequence of courses that provides individuals with the academic and technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and for careers in current or emerging employment sectors. CTE contributes to students' academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills. Competency-based applied learning, work-based learning, and comprehensive career development are key components of CTE. Section 112(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 20 U.S.C. 2322(a)(2)(A), requires each State to make available up to one percent of the State's allotment under section 111 to serve individuals in State institutions, such as State correctional institutions and institutions that serve individuals with disabilities. Recognizing the importance of offering effective CTE programs to justice-involved youths, during program year 2013-14, more than half of the States reported using Perkins IV funds to support CTE programming in juvenile justice facilities.20 We would expect projects funded under this grant competition to build on these ongoing efforts.

    19 See www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ270/pdf/PLAW-109publ270.pdf.

    20 This information was reported in the States' 2013-2014 Perkins Consolidated Annual Reports.

    In 2014, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice identified evidence-based principles and promising practices to assist juvenile justice providers in addressing the systemic challenges described at the beginning of this Background section. The recently released “Guiding Principles for Improving Education Programs in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings” (Guiding Principles) 21 have informed the development of this grant opportunity because they provide a framework for implementing a comprehensive system of support services and educational programming to improve education outcomes for justice-involved youths in and upon leaving confinement. They underscore the need for a strong program infrastructure,22 as well as the need for cross-agency coordination and collaboration to create systemic reforms that will address the myriad needs of justice-involved youths. The five Guiding Principles, each followed by specific practices of particular relevance to this grant opportunity, are:

    21www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/correctional-education/index.html.

    22 For further guidance on developing and maintaining a strong program infrastructure, the following resources are particularly important: “Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System” from the National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center (NDTAC) for Education of Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk (csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/juvenile-justice-white-paper/); and “Transition Toolkit 2.0” from the NDTAC for Education of Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk (www.neglected-delinquent.org/resource/transition-toolkit-20-meeting-educational-needs-youth-exposed-juvenile-justice-system).

    Principle I. A safe, healthy facility-wide climate that prioritizes education, provides the conditions for learning, and encourages the necessary behavioral and social support services that address the individual needs of all youths, including those with disabilities and English learners.

    Juvenile justice facilities should prioritize education, create the appropriate conditions for learning, and address individual needs through support services. Support services should be comprehensive and should align with the educational program. Facilities should: Use evidence-based assessments to identify appropriate activities; promote active youth engagement; include well-monitored prerelease planning that addresses the youths' diverse needs (e.g., mental health, substance abuse, family reengagement, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills deficits); provide care throughout all phases of reentry; and include approaches such as case management and mentoring.

    Principle II. Necessary funding to support educational opportunities for all youths within long-term secure care facilities, including those with disabilities and English learners, comparable to opportunities for peers who are not system-involved.

    Juvenile justice facilities should receive sufficient funding to ensure all justice-involved youths receive a quality education compared to peers who are not system-involved. Sufficient resources are needed to ensure a strong sustainable program infrastructure that supports a process for collecting, analyzing, and using data to improve program quality.

    Principle III. Recruitment, employment, and retention of qualified education staff with skills relevant in juvenile justice settings who can positively impact long-term student outcomes through demonstrated abilities to create and sustain effective teaching and learning environments.

    Juvenile justice facilities should recruit, employ, and retain qualified education staff. Staff should be trained on cultural competency in working with individuals of different socioeconomic status, race, and age. Staff also should learn how to create cooperative, supportive learning environments in a juvenile justice setting; build positive relationships with students; and help students meet program requirements and transition to the larger community.

    Principle IV. Rigorous and relevant curricula aligned with State academic and career and technical education standards that utilize instructional methods, tools, materials, and practices that promote college- and career-readiness.

    Juvenile justice facilities should provide rigorous, relevant curricula that is standards-driven and uses appropriate instructional practices that prepare students for college and the workforce. Education services should: Be tailored to the youths' age, prior experiences, and specific developmental needs (e.g., disabilities and English language skills); connect to career pathways that incorporate students' needs and interests; involve students in planning; and include programs such as CTE, youth-centered career development services, and work-based learning.

    Principle V. Formal processes and procedures—through statutes, memoranda of understanding, and practices—that ensure successful navigation across child-serving systems and smooth reentry into communities.

    Juvenile justice facilities should implement processes and procedures to support the youths' transition from confinement to the community. This requires collaborative, well-defined partnerships that bridge facility- and community-based providers and systems that serve justice-involved youths, as well as other youth-serving systems, such as education, child welfare, employment, housing, behavioral health, and physical health services. These partnerships should have policies and procedures that support communication, youth transitions, data sharing, and accountability.

    Projects funded under this grant competition must be implemented in partnership with a variety of providers and systems, to garner the resources and expertise needed to implement specific practices from the Guiding Principles that will address the specific, identified needs of youths to be served under the proposed JJ Reentry CTE program, and to support their successful transition from confinement to the community. We would expect funded projects to use partner resources to provide programming and wraparound services that address participating youths' broader education and well-being needs and support successful reentry. We would expect funded projects to use JJ Reentry CTE Program funds for CTE-related programs and services, such as youth-centered career development services, effective CTE programs (including work-based learning where feasible), and career pathways, that support successful transitions from confinement to the community and to further education and employment.

    Nearly all youths leave juvenile justice facilities and return to their communities. For successful reentry to their communities, youths must be prepared to return to school, to access postsecondary education or employment training, or to enter employment. Through this competition, the Secretary will support the establishment and operation of projects that build on existing efforts to improve reentry outcomes for justice-involved youths, make CTE the education focus of their efforts, and build strong partnerships to implement a comprehensive, collaborative approach to improving education, employment, and other positive, well-being outcomes for justice-involved youths.

    Priorities: This notice includes three absolute priorities, one competitive preference priority, and one invitational priority.

    We are establishing the absolute and competitive preference priorities in a FY 2016 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). The invitational priority is from the Secretary's final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities) published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425).

    Absolute Priorities: The following priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet all three of these absolute priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Absolute Priority 1: Improving School Climate, Behavioral Supports, and Correctional Education.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to improve the quality of CTE programs in juvenile justice facilities (such as detention facilities and secure and non-secure placements) and support reentry after release, by linking the youths to education, wraparound services and youth centered job training programs.

    Absolute Priority 2: Enhancing State or Local Efforts to Improve Reentry Outcomes.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to build upon and enhance State or local efforts to improve reentry outcomes for justice-involved youth, such as those carried out under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's Title I, Part D, Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk, the Second Chance Act, Perkins IV, WIA/WIOA Youth Workforce Investment Activities, the Department of Labor Employment Training Administration Reentry Employment Opportunities programs, career pathways initiatives, or other Federal, State, local, or philanthropy-funded initiatives.

    Absolute Priority 3: Partnerships.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a project in partnership with a variety of providers and systems. An applicant must—

    (a) Identify required partners which must include at least one of each of the following—

    (1) Juvenile justice agency;

    (2) Local educational agency (including representatives specializing, for instance, in CTE, special education, and other fields);

    (3) Postsecondary institution (including representatives specializing, for instance, in postsecondary CTE, workforce development, and other fields); and

    (4) Workforce development agency.

    (b) In addition, the applicant may identify other potential partners, including—

    (1) Child welfare agencies;

    (2) Workforce investment boards;

    (3) Employers;

    (4) Labor organizations;

    (5) Other social service agencies;

    (6) Community-based organizations; and

    (7) Other entities.

    (c) Include a letter of commitment from each entity with which it will partner to implement the proposed project.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: These priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 10 points for each competitive preference priority, depending on how well the application meets the priority.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1: Coordinating Juvenile Justice Reentry Education Programs and Services.

    Projects that are designed to coordinate juvenile justice reentry education programs and services to be provided with programs and services being provided through subgrants received under Title I, Part D, Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2: Improving Job-Driven Training and Employment Outcomes.

    Projects that are designed to improve job-driven training and employment outcomes for participating justice-involved youths by integrating the education and training to be provided into a career pathways program or system that: (1) Aligns education and training programs offered by community colleges, other institutions of higher education, and other workforce training providers; (2) offers related stackable credentials (as defined in this notice); and (3) provides support services that enable high-need students (as defined in this notice) to obtain industry-recognized credentials and obtain employment within an occupational area with the potential to advance to higher levels of education and employment in that area.

    Under this competition we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority.

    Invitational Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Invitational Priority: Leveraging Technology To Support Instructional Practice and Professional Development.

    Projects that are designed to leverage technology through implementing high-quality accessible digital tools, assessments, and materials that are aligned with rigorous college- and career-ready standards.

    Application Requirements

    The application requirements are:

    (a) Applicants must propose to serve the residents of at least one residential juvenile justice facility.

    (b) Applicants must—

    (1) Identify specific practices from the “Guiding Principles for Improving Education Programs in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings” that are based on strong theory (as defined in this notice) and that they will implement and describe how those practices will address the specific, identified needs of youths to be served.

    (2) Describe each partner's role in implementing the specific practices identified under Application Requirement (b)(1); and

    (3) Describe each partner's relevant experience, including experience working with justice-involved youths.

    (c) Applicants must describe how the CTE programs to be offered under the JJ Reentry CTE Program will—

    (1) Be supported by current labor market information;

    (2) Respond to employer needs;

    (3) Integrate general employability skills with career and technical instruction;

    (4) Provide career exploration, guidance, and planning; and

    (5) Lead to industry-recognized credentials that align with secondary and postsecondary CTE programs and/or other workforce training and employment opportunities post-release.

    (d) Applicants must describe how professional development needs will be identified and addressed in the project in order to address the needs of participating justice-involved youths and to deliver high-quality CTE services.

    (e) Applicants must submit a detailed project plan, for the entire project period. The plan must include a timeline of specific activities to be carried out in each year of the project.

    (f) Applicants must—

    (1) Include a plan for annual project evaluations that will assess the project's progress in meeting its goals and objectives, provide feedback for the project partners on the effectiveness of key project components, and identify areas needing improvement; and

    (2) Describe current capacity to share participant data collected by the different project partners and a plan to improve that capacity if necessary, for the purpose of meeting participant needs and reporting valid and reliable data on the required performance measures.

    Definitions

    The definitions of “regular high school diploma” and “stackable credentials” are from the Supplemental Priorities. The definition of “high-need students” is based on the Supplemental Priorities. The definitions of “logic model” and “strong theory” are from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) at 34 CFR 77.1(c).

    High-need students means students who are at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a General Education Development (GED) credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award.

    Stackable credentials means credentials that are part of a sequence of credentials that can be accumulated over time to increase an individual's qualifications and help him or her to advance along a career pathway to different and potentially higher-paying jobs.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions and other requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 114(c)(1) of the Perkins IV (20 U.S.C. 2324(c)(1)) and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, definitions, and other requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, definitions, and other requirements will apply to the FY 2016 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 2324; 42 U.S.C. 3797.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) EDGAR in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $1,900,000 for the first 12 months of the project period. Funding for years two and three is subject to the availability of funds and to a grantee meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000-$400,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Award: $315,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 6.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 36 months. Applicants under this competition are required to provide detailed budget information for each of the 3 years of this project and for the total grant.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Perkins IV eligible recipients, which are—

    (a) Eligible agencies defined in section 3(12) of the Act, 20 U.S.C. 2302(12), as a State board designated or created consistent with State law as the sole State agency responsible for the administration of CTE in the State or for the supervision of the administration of CTE in the State; and

    (b) Eligible recipients defined in section 3(14) of the Act, 20 U.S.C. 2302(14), as—

    (1) A local educational agency (including a public charter school that operates as a local educational agency), an area CTE school, an educational service agency, or a consortium, eligible to receive assistance under section 131 of the Act; or

    (2) An eligible institution or consortium of eligible institutions eligible to receive assistance under section 132 of the Act.

    Note:

    Section 3(13) of the Act, 20 U.S.C. 2302(13), defines “eligible institution” as (a) a public or nonprofit private institution of higher education that offers CTE courses that lead to technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree; (b) a local educational agency providing education at the postsecondary level; (c) an area CTE school providing education at the postsecondary level; (d) a postsecondary educational institution controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or operated by or on behalf of any Indian tribe that is eligible to contract with the Secretary of the Interior for the administration of programs under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (925 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Act of April 16, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 452 et seq.); (e) an educational service agency; or (f) a consortium of two or more of the entities described in (a) through (e).

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Supplement-not-Supplant: This program is subject to supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. In accordance with section 311(a) of the Act, 20 U.S.C. 2391(a), funds under this program may not be used to supplant non-Federal funds used to carry out CTE activities. Further, the prohibition against supplanting also means that grantees will be required to use their negotiated restricted indirect cost rates under this program. (34 CFR 75.563)

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), or from the program office. To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.051A.

    To obtain a copy from the program office, contact the persons listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.

    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to no more than 35 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; the one-page abstract, or the resumes, bibliography, letters of support, or other appendices.

    Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:

    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the JJ Reentry CTE Program, your application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.

    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public upon request, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: August 31, 2015.

    Date of Pre-Application Meeting: September 9, 2015.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 30, 2015.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 29, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)),the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the JJ Reentry CTE Program competition, CFDA number 84.051A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the JJ Reentry CTE Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.051, not 84.051A).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Laura Messenger, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., PCP, Room 11028, Washington, DC 20202-7241. FAX: (202) 245-7170.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.051A) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.051A) 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039 Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR and are listed in the following paragraphs. The maximum score for all the selection criteria is 100 points. In addressing the criteria, applicants are encouraged to make explicit connections to the priorities and application requirements listed elsewhere in this notice. The selection criteria are as follows:

    a. Need for project. (up to 15 points) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

    1. The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project (up to 5 points); and

    2. The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses (up to 10 points).

    b. Significance. (up to 10 points) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

    1. The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement (up to 5 points); and

    2. The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population (up to 5 points).

    c. Quality of the project design. (up to 30 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

    1. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 5 points);

    2. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 5 points);

    3. The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance (up to 5 points);

    4. The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition (up to 10 points); and

    5. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) (up to 5 points).

    d. Quality of the management plan. (up to 15 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

    1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (up to 10 points); and

    2. The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (up to 5 points).

    e. Adequacy of resources. (up to 15 points) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

    1. The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project (up to 5 points);

    2. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project (up to 5 points); and

    3. The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support (up to 5 points).

    f. Quality of the project evaluation. (up to 15 points) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers—

    1. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (up to 5 points);

    2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (up to 5 points); and

    3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes (up to 5 points).

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act, Federal departments and agencies must clearly describe the goals and objectives of their programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish these goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring progress made, and regularly report on their achievement. One important source of program information is the annual project evaluation conducted under individual grants. To determine the overall effectiveness of projects funded under this competition, grantees must be prepared to measure and report on the following measures of effectiveness:

    (a) The number and percentage of youths served by the JJ Reentry CTE Program that are enrolled in further education or training, post-release, such as:

    (1) Secondary education or other State-approved equivalent;

    (2) GED bridge program;

    (3) Postsecondary education; or

    (4) Workforce training program.

    (b) The number and percentage of youths served by the JJ Reentry CTE Program that complete secondary education.

    (c) The number and percentage of youths served by the JJ Reentry CTE Program that attain an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or degree.

    (d) The number and percentage of youths served by the JJ Reentry CTE Program that seek and obtain employment after release.

    (e) The number and percentage of youths served by the JJ Reentry CTE Program that are adjudicated within one year of release, as evidenced by rearrest, conviction for new offenses (as a juvenile or adult), and reincarceration.

    In addition to these measures, applicants may establish interim or other measures that they think will be useful in measuring positive outcomes for participating youths, such as learning gains, continued enrollment in CTE courses that support the student's career goals, desired changes in behavior, and other measures of positive youth gains. Grantees will be responsible for collecting and reporting data annually on the required performance measures as well as any other performance measures they choose to establish for this JJ Reentry CTE Program.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Messenger, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11028, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202)245-7840 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

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

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Johan E. Uvin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21533 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2522-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PJM submits filing to include Rochelle signatory page to Att A of TOA-42 to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2523-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AR Provider Amendments, Clean-Up Changes to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2524-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Peach Solar Energy 3 (Project 2) SGIA Filing to be effective 8/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    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 25, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21438 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-7-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-915); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-915 (Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 28264, 5/18/2015) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-915 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0250 or collection number (FERC-915), should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-0710.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-7-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-915, Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0250.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-915 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission has the regulatory responsibility under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that wholesale sales of electricity are just and reasonable and provided in a non-discriminatory manner. The Commission uses the information maintained by the respondents under FERC-915 to monitor the entities' sales, ensure that the prices are just and reasonable, maintain the integrity of the wholesale jurisdictional sales markets, and ensure that the entities comply with the requirements of the FPA and any orders authorizing market-based rate sales. FERC-915 information collection requirements are contained in 18 Code of Federal Regulations part 35.41(d).

    Type of Respondents: Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:  1 The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

    1 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-915: Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Record Retention Requirements Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden &
  • cost per
  • response 2
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1). Electric Utilities With Market-Based Rate Authority 1,955 1 1,955 1
  • $30.66
  • 1,955
  • $59,940
  • $30.66
    2 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $30.66 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The occupation title is “file clerk” and the occupation code is 43-4071. 69.4 percent of this cost is hourly wages. The rest of the cost is benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is: $416,293

    • Labor costs: 1,955 hours * $30.66/hour = $59,940

    • Record retention/storage cost for paper records (using an estimate of 48,891 cubic feet): $315,792 3

    3 The Commission bases this figure on industry archival storage costs.

    • Electronic record retention/storage cost: $40,561

    ○ staff-time cost: 1,955 hours ÷ 2 4 = 977.50 hours * $28/hour 5 = $27,370;

    4 Only 50% of records are retained in electronic formats.

    5 The Commission bases the $28/hour figure on a FERC staff study that included estimating public utility recordkeeping costs.

    ○ electronic record storage cost: 865 * $15.25/year 6 = $13,191.

    6 The Commission bases the estimated $15.25/year for each entity on the estimated cost to service and to store 1 GB of data (based on the aggregated cost of an IBM advanced data protection server).

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21436 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1198-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Terminating Negotiated Rate PAL Agreements—Koch Energy Services, LLC to be effective 8/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150818-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    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.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-806-001.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Docket No. RP08-426 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/1/2010.

    Filed Date: 8/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150817-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    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 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21435 Filed 8-28-15; 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: ER14-2259-002; ER11-4026-004; ER13-1734-001.

    Applicants: Desert View Power LLC, Eel River Power LLC, Plainfield Renewable Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Greenleaf MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5317.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2380-000.

    Applicants: Willey Battery Utility, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to August 5, 2015 Willey Battery Utility, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2515-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Second Revised Rate Schedule No. 104-Interface Allocation Agreement to be effective 10/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2516-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Second Revised Rate Schedule No. 108-JOP Allocation Agreement with JEA to be effective 10/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2517-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended GIA and DSA Longboat Solar to be effective 8/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2518-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits Interconnection Agreement No. 4240 between ATSI and AEP to be effective 10/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2519-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1977R6 Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2520-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2041R4 Kansas City Board of Public Utilities PTP Agreement to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2521-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2881R2 City of Chanute, KS NITSA NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/25/15.

    Accession Number: 20150825-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-58-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Application of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., for FPA Section 204 authorization.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5322.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-59-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC.

    Description: Application of Entergy Louisiana Power, LLC, for FPA Section 204 authorization.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5323.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-60-000; ES15-61-000; ES15-62-000; ES15-63-000; ES15-64-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc.

    Description: Application of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., et. al., for FPA Section 204 Authorization.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5325.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR15-16-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.

    Description: Request of North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Acceptance of its 2016 Business Plan and Budget and the 2016 Business Plans and Budgets of Regional Entities and for Approval of Proposed Assessments to Fund Budgets under RR15-16.

    Filed Date: 8/24/15.

    Accession Number: 20150824-5316.

    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 25, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21440 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0928; FRL-9933-24-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fuel Use Requirements for Great Lake Steamships (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Fuel Use Requirements for Great Lake Steamships (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2458.02, OMB Control No. 2060-0679) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 37255) during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0928, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alan Stout, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4805; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted requirements for marine vessels operating in and around U.S. territorial waters to use reduced-sulfur diesel fuel. This requirement does not apply for steamships, but it would apply for steamships that are converted to run on diesel engines. A regulatory provision allows vessel owners to qualify for a waiver from the fuel-use requirements for a defined period for such converted vessels. EPA uses the data to oversee compliance with regulatory requirements, including communicating with affected companies and answering questions from the public or other industry participants regarding the waiver in question.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.

    Estimated number of respondents: 6 (total).

    Frequency of response: Once.

    Total estimated burden: 14 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $988 (per year), includes no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21535 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9933-33-OARM] National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a public meeting of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. NACEPT members represent academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and local, state, and tribal governments. The purpose of this meeting is for NACEPT to begin developing recommendations to the Administrator regarding actions that EPA can take in response to the agency's charge on citizen science. A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/nacept.

    DATES:

    NACEPT will hold a two-day public meeting on September 28, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST) and September 29, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building South, Room 2138 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer, [email protected], (202) 564-2432, U.S. EPA, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management, and Outreach (MC1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NACEPT should be sent to Eugene Green at [email protected] by September 21, 2015. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend should contact Eugene Green via email or by calling (202) 564-2432 no later than September 21, 2015.

    Meeting Access: Information regarding accessibility and/or accommodations for individuals with disabilities, should be directed to Eugene Green at the email address or phone number listed above. To ensure adequate time for processing, please make requests for accommodations at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Eugene Green, Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21486 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL:9930-02-OA] Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Charter Renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App 2. The Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, CHPAC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of CHPAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with the development of regulations, guidance and policies to address children's health risks. Inquiries may be directed to Martha Berger, Designated Federal Officer, CHPAC, U.S. EPA,MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460 or 202-564-2191 or [email protected]

    Dated: August 20, 2015. Ruth Etzel, Office of Children's Health Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21484 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9933-28-OA] Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the Chartered SAB to discuss information provided in the agency's Spring 2015 regulatory agenda and to review the draft SAB report on the EPA's proposed Fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4).

    DATES:

    The public teleconference for the Chartered SAB will be held on Thursday, September 24, 2015, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public teleconference may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4885 or at [email protected] General information about the SAB as well as any updates concerning the teleconference announced in this notice may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered SAB will hold a public teleconference for two purposes.

    (1) The first purpose is to discuss recommendations regarding the information provided in the agency's Spring 2015 regulatory agenda, specifically planned actions and their supporting science. Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/SAB%20Spring%202015%20Reg%20Agenda?OpenDocument.

    (2) The second purpose of this public teleconference is to review a draft SAB report on the EPA's proposed Fourth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4). Quality review is a key function of the chartered SAB. Draft reports prepared by SAB committees, panels, or work groups must be reviewed and approved by the chartered SAB before transmittal to the EPA Administrator. Consistent with FACA, the chartered SAB makes a determination in a public meeting about each draft report and determines whether the report is ready to be transmitted to the EPA Administrator.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to consult with the scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board, prior to publishing a list of currently unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the SDWA (referred to as the Contaminant Candidate List, or CCL). This list is subsequently used to identify priority contaminants for further research needs and to make determinations on whether or not to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL with national primary drinking water regulations. The draft CCL4 includes 100 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial contaminants. Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/CCL%204?OpenDocument.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and materials in support of this teleconference will be available on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the teleconference.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal Officer as noted above. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Carpenter, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above one week before the teleconference to be placed on the list of public speakers. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO, preferably via email, at the contact information noted above one week before each of the teleconferences so that the information may be made available to the Board members for their consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter at (202) 564-4885 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Carpenter preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Christopher S. Zarba, Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21485 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0979] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before September 30, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0979.

    Title: License Audit Letter.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 25,000 respondents; 25,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534 and 535.

    Total Annual Burden: 12,500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. Records of the Wireless Radio Services may include information about individuals or households, and the use(s) and disclosure of this information is governed by the requirements of a system of records, FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”. However, the Commission makes all information within the Wireless Radio Services publicly available on its Universal Licensing System (ULS) Web page.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of their rules. Information within Wireless Radio Services is maintained in the Commission's system or records notice or `SORN', FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”. These licensee records are publicly available and routinely used in accordance with subsection b of the Privacy Act of 1973, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), as amended. Material that is afforded confidential treatment pursuant to a request made under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules will not be available for public inspection. The Commission has in place the following policy and procedures for records retention and disposal: Records will be actively maintained as long as the individual remains a licensee. Paper records will be archived after being keyed or scanned into the system and destroyed when 12 years old; electronic records will be backed up and deleted twelve years after the licenses are no longer valid.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking OMB approval for an extension of this information collection in order to obtain their full three year approval. There is no change to the reporting requirement. There is no change to the Commission's burden estimates. The Wireless Telecommunications and Bureau (WTB) of the FCC periodically conducts audits of the construction and/or operational status of various Wireless radio stations in its licensing database that are subject to rule-based construction and operational requirements. The Commission's rules for these Wireless services require construction within a specified timeframe and require a station to remain operational in order for the license to remain valid. The information will be used by FCC personnel to assure that licensees' stations are constructed and currently operating in accordance with the parameters of the current FCC authorization and rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21408 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0819] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 30, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0819.

    Title: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund.

    Form Number: FCC Forms 497, 481 & 555.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households and business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 28,009,115 respondents; 30,541,922 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167 hours to 250 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Daily or monthly, every 60 days, annual, biennial, on occasion reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement and record keeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254 and 403.

    Total Annual Burden: 22,064,798 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. The Commission completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for some of the information collection requirements contain in this collection. The PIA was published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 73535 on December 6,2013. The PIA may be reviewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Some of the requirements contained in this information collection does affect individuals or households, and thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. The FCC's system of records notice (SORN), FCC/WCB-1, “Lifeline Program.” The Commission will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”). As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the Federal Register on December 6, 2013 (78 FR 73535).

    Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection after this comment period to obtain the full, three year clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission also proposes several revisions to this information collection. In June 2015, the Commission adopted an order reforming its low-income universal service support mechanisms. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, (Lifeline Second Reform Order). This revised information collection addresses requirements to carry out the programs to which the Commission committed itself in the Lifeline Second Reform Order. Under this information collection, the Commission seeks to revise the information collection to comply with the Commission's new rules, adopted in the 2015 Lifeline Second Reform Order, regarding the retention of subscriber eligibility documentation, eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation, and ETC reimbursement under the Lifeline program; update the number of respondents for all the existing information collection requirements, thus increasing the total burden hours for some requirements and decreasing the total burden hours for other requirements; eliminate some requirements as part of this information collection, because they are no longer applicable; revise the FCC Form 555 and the accompanying instructions to require ETCs to provide a Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN); and make non-substantive changes to this information collection, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507, to update the FCC Form 497 Instructions and require the electronic filing of the FCC Forms 497 and 555. These updates do not modify the burdens or costs contained in this information collection.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21407 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 25, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. KEDAP S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico; to become a bank holding company by acquiring at least 34 percent of the voting shares of Commerce Bank of Temecula Valley, Murrieta, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 26, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21461 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 151 0074] Pfizer Inc. and Hospira, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent orders— embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/pfizerhospiraconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Pfizer Hospira Consent, File No. 151 0074” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/pfizerhospiraconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Pfizer Hospira Consent, File No. 151 0074” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kari A. Wallace, Bureau of Competition, (202-326-3085), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, have been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 24, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 23, 2015. Write “Pfizer Hospira Consent, File No. 151 0074” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/pfizerhospiraconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Pfizer Hospira Consent, File No. 151 0074” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 23, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) and Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Pfizer's acquisition of Hospira. Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, the parties are required to divest all of Pfizer's rights and assets related to generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution and all Hospira's rights and assets related to clindamycin phosphate injection, voriconazole injection, and melphalan hydrochloride injection to Alvogen Group, Inc. (“Alvogen”).

    The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again evaluate the proposed Consent Agreement, along with the comments received, to make a final decision as to whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).

    Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger executed on February 5, 2015, Pfizer proposes to acquire Hospira for approximately $16 billion (the “Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission alleges in its Complaint that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening current competition in the markets for generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution and clindamycin phosphate injection and future competition in the markets for voriconazole injection and melphalan hydrochloride injection in the United States. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving the competition that otherwise would be eliminated by the Proposed Acquisition.

    I. The Products and Structure of the Markets

    The Proposed Acquisition would reduce the number of current suppliers in the markets for generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution and clindamycin phosphate injection, and reduce the number of future suppliers in the markets for voriconazole injection and melphalan hydrochloride injection.

    Generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution is a mucolytic therapy used to treat certain respiratory disorders. Acetylcysteine liquefies mucus in the lungs, which then can be coughed or suctioned out. Patients inhale the solution through a nebulizer mask, facemask, mouthpiece, tent, or intermittent positive pressure-breathing machine. Only three companies—Fresenius Kabi, partnered with Gland Pharma Ltd. and Pfizer; Hospira; and American Regent, Inc.—supply generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution in the United States. The branded version of this product, Mucomyst, is no longer available. Fresenius/Gland/Pfizer is the market leader with an approximately 69% share and Hospira has an approximately 22% share.

    Clindamycin phosphate injection is an antibiotic used to treat lung, skin, blood, bone, joint, and gynecological infections in hospitals. Currently, only four companies supply the product in the United States: Pfizer, Hospira, Sagent Pharmaceuticals, and Fresenius Kabi. While Pfizer's clindamycin phosphate product is a branded version, the price of Pfizer's product is competitive with the generic products. Customers, therefore, play the branded and the generic products against each other to negotiate prices. Pfizer and Hospira have a combined approximate market share of more than 80%.

    Voriconazole injection is an antifungal medication used to treat significant fungal infections in hospitals. Pfizer currently sells its Vfend brand voriconazole injection product priced competitively with the only generic version in the United States, which is offered by Sandoz. Hospira is one of a limited number of suppliers capable of entering the voriconazole injection market in the near future.

    Melphalan hydrochloride injection is a chemotherapy agent used to treat multiple myeloma and ovarian cancer. There are currently two melphalan hydrochloride injection products available in the United States: The branded version, which was originally developed and marketed by Glaxo Smith Kline and is now supplied by ApoPharma USA, Inc. (“ApoPharma”), and the generic version, sold by Mylan N.V. (“Mylan”). ApoPharma prices its branded version of the product competitively with the generic version offered by Mylan. Pfizer and Hospira are developing melphalan hydrochloride injection products, and are two of a limited number of suppliers capable of entering the market in the near future.

    II. Entry

    Entry into the four markets described earlier would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Acquisition. The combination of drug development times and regulatory requirements, including approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), is costly and lengthy.

    III. Effects

    In markets for pharmaceutical products used primarily in hospitals, like the products here, branded drug manufacturers are typically unable to command a premium price for their products because of the reimbursement structure for drugs administered in hospitals. Hospitals typically would not be reimbursed for using a premium-priced branded injectable product, when lower-priced therapeutically equivalent products are available. As a result, brand manufacturers of sterile injectable or inhalation products may lower their prices and compete directly with generic manufacturers' products. Customers tend to gravitate to the lowest-priced product, regardless of whether the drug was approved by the FDA as a brand or a generic product.

    Like true generic pharmaceutical markets, these multi-source pharmaceutical products generally are commodities, and prices often are inversely correlated with the number of competitors in each market. As the number of suppliers offering a therapeutically equivalent drug increases, the price for that drug decreases due to the direct competition between the existing suppliers and each additional supplier. The Proposed Acquisition would eliminate the current competition between two of the three competitors in the market for generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution, resulting in a duopoly and likely price increases. Similarly, in the market for clindamycin phosphate solution, the Proposed Acquisition would eliminate competition between two of only four current competitors, leading to higher prices.

    In addition, the Proposed Acquisition likely would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers by eliminating future competition that would otherwise have occurred if Pfizer and Hospira remained independent. The evidence shows that anticompetitive effects are likely to result from the Proposed Acquisition due to the elimination of an additional independent entrant in the currently concentrated markets for voriconazole injection and melphalan hydrochloride injection, which would have enabled customers to negotiate lower prices. Customers and competitors have observed—and pricing data confirms—that the price of these pharmaceutical products decreases with new entry even after several other suppliers have entered the market. Thus, absent a remedy, the Proposed Acquisition will likely cause U.S. consumers to pay significantly higher prices for voriconazole injection and melphalan hydrochloride injection.

    IV. The Consent Agreement

    The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the competitive concerns raised by the acquisition in all four markets at issue by requiring Pfizer to divest all its rights to generic acetylcysteine inhalation solution and Hospira to divest all of its rights and assets related to clindamycin phosphate injection, voriconazole injection, and melphalan hydrochloride injection to Alvogen. Alvogen is a private, global pharmaceutical corporation that develops, manufacturers, sells, and distributes generic pharmaceuticals in the United States and in 33 other countries around the world. The parties must accomplish these divestitures and relinquish their rights no later than ten days after the Proposed Acquisition is consummated.

    The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the Proposed Acquisition. If the Commission determines that Alvogen is not an acceptable acquirer, or that the manner of the divestitures is not acceptable, the proposed Order requires the parties to unwind the sale of rights to Alvogen and then divest the products to a Commission-approved acquirer within six months of the date the Order becomes final. The proposed Order further allows the Commission to appoint a trustee in the event the parties fail to divest the products as required.

    The proposed Consent Agreement and Order contain several provisions to help ensure that the divestitures are successful. Alvogen will acquire Pfizer's acetylcysteine inhalation ANDA and stream of revenue associated with the product and will assume Pfizer's role in the contractual relationships with the third parties. Pfizer/Hospira will supply Alvogen with the clindamycin phosphate injection products for three years while the company transfers the manufacturing technology to Alvogen or its designee. Similarly, Pfizer/Hospira will transfer the third-party development and contract manufacturing agreements for voriconazole injection and melphalan hydrochloride injection to Alvogen. The proposed Order also requires Pfizer and Hospira to provide transitional services to Alvogen to assist it in establishing its manufacturing capabilities and securing all of the necessary FDA approvals. These transitional services include technical assistance to manufacture clindamycin in substantially the same manner and quality employed or achieved by Hospira, and advice and training from knowledgeable employees of the parties.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21513 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket No.: 108002015-1111-07] Notice of Standard Terms and Conditions for Council Grants AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) has established Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions (STCs) that will apply to all grants awarded by the Council.

    DATES:

    The STCs are effective on August 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Smith, Council staff, telephone number: 504-444-3558.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council is authorized to award grants pursuant to the Council-Selected Restoration and Spill Impact Components of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2) and 1321(t)(3). The Council has established STCs that will apply to and be incorporated into all grants awarded by the Council under the RESTORE Act. The electronic version of the STCs can be viewed and downloaded at www.restorethegulf.gov/resources/foia-library-council-documents.

    Will D. Spoon, Program Analyst, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21417 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10401] Emergency Clearance: Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. 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. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    We are, however, requesting an emergency review of the information collection referenced below. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the normal clearance procedures are followed. We are seeking emergency approval for modifications to the information collection request (ICR) currently approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0938-1155. CMS seeks an emergency revision to the ICR approved under 0938-1155 to collect additional information from health insurance companies as part of the MLR and risk corridors programs. This ICR is necessary to validate data that issuers have previously submitted to CMS in more detail than CMS has previously anticipated. While conducting program integrity reviews of submitted data, CMS has identified a number of significant discrepancies in the 2014 benefit year submissions that issuers made for MLR and risk corridors on July 31, 2015. CMS also identified a number of common errors that may lead to submissions that do not comply with CMS regulations and guidance. In order to resolve these potential discrepancies, ensure all submissions comply with applicable guidance, and operate the MLR and risk corridors program accurately and effectively, CMS needs additional information to explain the data found in issuers' underlying MLR and risk corridors submissions. Without this additional information, CMS will be unable to verify the accuracy of the submission and validate the data needed to operate the MLR or risk corridors programs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: CMS-10401/OMB Control Number 0938-1155, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10401 Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors, and Risk Adjustment

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “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. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the normal clearance procedures are followed.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors, and Risk Adjustment; Use: Under Section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing regulation at 45 CFR part 153, issuers of qualified health plans (QHPs) must participate in a risk corridors program. A QHP issuer will pay risk corridors charges or be eligible to receive risk corridors payments or based on the ratio of the issuer's allowable costs to the target amount. A final rule (Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment) implementing the risk corridors program was published on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17220), which added part 153 to title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Final rules (2014, 2015, and 2016 Payment Notices) outlining the risk corridors benefit and payment parameters for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 benefit years were published on March 11, 2013 (78 FR 15410), March 11, 2014 (79 FR 13744), and February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10750), respectively. Additionally, on October 30, 2013, HHS published the Second Final Program Integrity rule (78 FR 65076) to align the risk corridors program with the requirements of the single risk pool provision at 45 CFR 156.80. The risk corridors data collection applies to QHP issuers the individual and small group markets. Each QHP issuer is required to submit an annual report to CMS concerning the issuer's allowable costs, allowable administrative costs, premium, and proportion of market premium in QHPs. Risk corridors premium information that is specific to an issuer's QHPs is collected through a separate data reporting form.

    The risk corridors plan-level reporting form, and instructions for completing the form were published as part of the information collection approved under OMB control number 0938-1164. In §§ 153.530 and 153.540 we set forth a data validation process for risk corridors data submissions. The information collection burden associated with the risk corridors data validation process is accounted for in the “Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions: Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors, Risk Adjustment, and Appeals” approved under OMB control number 0938-1155.

    Based on CMS's identification of more significant data discrepancies than previously anticipated, we are requesting an emergency revision to the risk corridors data validation information collection requirement. We are requiring all companies with QHP issuers to complete a checklist to attest that their submission complied with critical guidelines for risk corridors and MLR data submission. For companies with issuers whose reported claims or premium amounts for risk corridors and MLR differ from data collected for other premium stabilization programs by a greater magnitude than expected, CMS is requiring that issuers quantify these differences, and provide a written explanation of the magnitude of the discrepancy. We require these descriptions to be approved by an actuary. The MLR Risk Corridors Submission Checklist and the Risk Corridors Data Discrepancy Worksheet will be submitted via web form at the company level, such that a company will submit one checklist and one discrepancy worksheet that includes information for all of its applicable issuers. As a result of this new requirement, we are updating our annual burden hour estimates to reflect the actual numbers of risk corridors submissions received by QHP issuers and the increased annual burden hours associated with submitting additional data validation information to CMS. Form Number: CMS-10401 (OMB control number: 0938-1155); Frequency: Annual; Affected Public: Health insurance companies that issued qualified health plans; Number of Respondents: 250; Total Annual Responses: 250; Total Annual Hours: 2,040. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Jaya Ghildiyal at 301-492-5149).

    We are requesting OMB review and approval of this collection by September 4, 2015, with a 180-day approval period. Written comments and recommendations will be considered from the public if received by the date and address noted above.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21476 Filed 8-27-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:

    Peter Littlefield, University of California, San Francisco: Based on an assessment conducted by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the Respondent's admission, and analysis conducted by ORI, ORI and UCSF found that Mr. Peter Littlefield, Graduate Student on a leave of absence from the Tetrad Graduate Program, UCSF, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), training grant T32 GM007810 and grant R01 GM109176.

    ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data in the following two (2) publications:

    Science Signaling 7:ra114, 2014 (hereafter referred to as “Paper 1”) Chemistry & Biology 21:453-458, 2014 (hereafter referred to as “Paper 2”)

    ORI found that Respondent knowingly falsified and/or fabricated data and related text by altering the experimental data to support the experimental hypothesis. Specifically:

    1. ORI found falsified and/or fabricated data in Paper 1 in:

    a. Figure 5B by manipulation of the HER3 protein concentrations in the experiment to provide the desired outcome b. Figure 6C for the identification of the kinase domain construct EGFR-V924R by falsely claiming that both EGFR and HER3 contained the kinase domains and the full JM segments, when the JM-HER3 construct included cloning tags c. Figure 6D by manually manipulating the error bars to increase statistical significance of the kinase assay

    2. ORI found falsified and/or fabricated data in Paper 2 in:

    a. Figure 3C by manually altering some of the data points by 10-20% support the desired hypothesis b. Figure 4A by manipulating data points and reducing error bars and failing to report that JM-HER3 construct had cloning tags c. Figure 4B by reducing several data points by ~ 15%

    Mr. Littlefield has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and has voluntarily agreed:

    (1) To have his research supervised for period of three (3) years beginning on August 4, 2015; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; Respondent agreed that he will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

    (2) that for period of three (3) years beginning on August 4, 2015, any institution employing him shall submit in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived, and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;

    (3) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for period of three (3) years beginning on August 4, 2015; and

    (4) to retraction or correction of the following papers:

    Science Signaling 7:ra114, 2014 Chemistry & Biology 21:453-458, 2014
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.

    Donald Wright, Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21421 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01).

    Date: September 25 and 28, 2015.

    Time: September 25, 2015, 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; Room 3F52B; 5601 Fishers Lane; Rockville, MD 20892; (Telephone Conference Call).

    Time: September 28, 2015, 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; Room 3F52B; 5601 Fishers Lane; Rockville, MD 20892; (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nancy Vazquez-Maldonado, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer; Scientific Review Program; Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F52B; National Institutes of Health/NIAID; 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823; Bethesda, MD 20892-9823; (240) 669-5044; [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 26, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21481 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Pregnancy in Women with Disabilities.

    Date: September 21, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Delia Olufokunbi Sam, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0684, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group, Bioengineering of Neuroscience, Vision and Low Vision Technologies Study Section.

    Date: September 29, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: St. Gregory Luxury Hotel & Suites, 2033 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Robert C Elliott, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5190, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3009, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group, Molecular Neurogenetics Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Eugene Carstea, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9756, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group, Addiction Risks and Mechanisms Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    Contact Person: Kristen Prentice, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3112, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-0726, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group, Biomedical Imaging Technology B Study Section.

    Date: October 5-6, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Lee Rosen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5116, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1171, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 25, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21396 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group; Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Structure/Function and Dynamics Study Section.

    Date: September 28-29, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Palomar; 2121 P Street NW.; Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: David Balasundaram, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5189, MSC 7840; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-435-1022; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Drug Discovery and Molecular Pharmacology Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Arts Hotel; 700 Tchoupitoulas Street; New Orleans, LA 70130.

    Contact Person: Jeffrey Smiley, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6194, MSC 7804; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-594-7945; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Medical Imaging Study Section.

    Date: October 5-6, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center; 5000 Seminary Road; Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Xiang-Ning Li, MD, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, MSC 7854; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-435-1744; [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR13-137: Bioengineering Research.

    Date: October 6, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Fairmont Washington DC; 2401 M Street NW.; Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Yvonne Bennett, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5199, MSC 7846; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-379-3793; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Pain and Chemosensory Mechanisms.

    Date: October 6-7, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive; Bethesda, MD 20852; (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John Bishop, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, MSC 7844; Bethesda, MD 20892; (301) 408-9664; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Alcohol, Neurotoxicology and Drugs.

    Date: October 6-7, 2015

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive; Bethesda, MD 20892; (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5164, MSC 7844; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-435-1119; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group; Neuroscience and Ophthalmic Imaging Technologies Study Section.

    Date: October 6-7, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Fairmont Washington DC; 2401 M Street NW.; Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Yvonne Bennett, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5199, MSC 7846; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-379-3793; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Clinical and Visual Neurosciences.

    Date: October 7, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive; Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Paula Elyse Schauwecker, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; National Institutes of Health; Center for Scientific Review; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211; Bethesda, MD 20892; [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 26, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21480 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; R33 Applications.

    Date: September 17, 2015.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-7861[email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Interventions.

    Date: September 29, 2015.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call)

    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-7861, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 25, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21437 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: October 13, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sherry L. Dupere, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 451-3415, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 25, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21397 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Pragmatic Research and Natural Experiments.

    Date: September 28, 2015.

    Time: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites; 6711 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK; National Institutes Of Health; Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892-2542; (301) 594-8898; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-12-265: NIDDK Ancillary Studies (R01).

    Date: October 5, 2015.

    Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; Two Democracy Plaza; 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892; (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dianne Camp, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK; National Institutes Of Health; Room 756, 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892-2542; 301-594-7682; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; The NIDDK-KUH Fellowship Review Committee.

    Date: October 8, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Kinzie Hotel; 20 West Kiznie; Chicago, IL 60654.

    Contact Person: Xiaodu Guo, MD, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK; National Institutes Of Health; Room 761, 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892-5452; (301) 594-4719; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-12-265: NIDDK Ancillary Studies on Nutrition and Diabetes.

    Date: October 16, 2015.

    Time: 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; Two Democracy Plaza; 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-594-7682; (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dianne Camp, PhD.; Scientific Review Officer; Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK; National Institutes of Health; Room 756, 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892-2542; 301-594-7682; [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Small Grants for New Investigators to Promote Diversity.

    Date: October 29, 2015.

    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; Two Democracy Plaza; 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 20892; (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jason D. Hoffert, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK; National Institutes Of Health; Room 741A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard; Bethesda, MD 2089-2542; 301-496-9010; [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 26, 2015. David Clary, <E T="03">Program Analyst Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2015-21478 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Council of Research Advocates.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Council of Research Advocates.

    Date: October 19-20, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: NCI Update, Introduction to Precision Medicine Initiative, NCI's Precision Medicine Trials, Advocates' Role in Precision Medicine Oncology.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C-Wing, Room 6 and 8, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Amy Williams, NCI Office of Advocacy Relations, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 10A28, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9723, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncra/ncra.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 26, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21479 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute On Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: October 26, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda; One Bethesda Metro Center; 7400 Wisconsin Avenue; Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jeannette L. Johnson, Ph.D; National Institutes on Aging; National Institutes of Health; 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-402-7705; [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 26, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21482 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: October 26, 2015.

    Time: 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sherry L. Dupere, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 451-3415, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 26, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21467 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Bundled Services for Designing Methodologically Rigorous Animal Studies (1208).

    Date: September 29, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 25, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21395 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0754] National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Vacancies AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations on national maritime security matters to the Secretary of Homeland Security via the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard.

    DATES:

    Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee that identify which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:

    • By Email: [email protected], Subject line: National Maritime Security Advisory Committee;

    • By Fax: 202-372-8353, ATTN: Mr. Ryan Owens, National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, Alternate Designated Federal Officer; or

    • By Mail: Send your completed application packets to: Mr. Ryan Owens, National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, CG-FAC, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Ryan Owens, Commandant (CG-FAC-1), National Maritime Security Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501, [email protected], Phone: 202-372-1108, Fax: 202-372-8353.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (title 5 U.S.C. Appendix). The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee advises, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary via the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to national maritime security.

    The full Committee normally meets at least two times per fiscal year. Working group meetings and teleconferences are held more frequently, as needed. The Committee may also meet for extraordinary purposes.

    Each member serves for a term of three years. Members may be considered to serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. While attending meetings or when otherwise engaged in committee business, members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses as permitted under applicable Federal travel regulations. However, members will not receive any salary or other compensation for their service on the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee.

    We will consider applications for positions listed below categories that will become vacant on December 31, 2015.

    Applicants with experience in the following sectors of the marine transportation industry with at least five years of practical experience in their field are encouraged to apply:

    • At least one individual who represents the interests of the port authorities;

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of the facilities owners or operators;

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of the terminal owners or operators;

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of the vessel owners or operators;

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of the maritime labor organizations;

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of the academic community;

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of State and local governments; and

    • at least one individual who represents the interests of the maritime industry.

    Due to the nature of National Maritime Security Advisory Committee business, National Maritime Security Advisory Committee members are required to apply for, obtain, and maintain a government national security clearance at the Secret level. The Coast Guard will sponsor and assist candidates with this process.

    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee by email or mail according to instructions in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice.

    To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2015-0754) in the Search box, and click “Search.” Please do not post your resume on this site.

    Dated: August 24, 2015. A.E. Tucci, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21532 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0077] Agency Information Collection Activities: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the Trusted Trader Program AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the Trusted Trader Program. CBP proposes to revise this information collection to include the information collection requirements for a new program known as the Trusted Trader Program. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before September 30, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 12510) on March 9, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the Trusted Trader Program.

    OMB Number: 1651-0077.

    Abstract: The C-TPAT Program is designed to safeguard the world's trade industry from terrorists and smugglers by prescreening its participants. The C-TPAT Program applies to United States importers, customs brokers, consolidators, port and terminal operators, carriers, and foreign manufacturers.

    Respondents apply to participate in C-TPAT using an on-line application at: https://ctpat.cbp.dhs.gov/trade-web/index. The C-TPAT Program application requests an applicant's contact and business information, including the number of company employees, the number of years in business, and a list of company officers. This collection of information is authorized by the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347).

    CBP proposes to establish a collection of information for a new program known as the Trusted Trader Program. The Trusted Trader Program will involve a unification of supply chain security aspects of the current C-TPAT Program and the internal controls of the Importer Self-Assessment (ISA) Program to integrate supply chain security and trade compliance. The goals of the Trusted Trader Program are to strengthen security by leveraging the C-TPAT supply chain requirements and validation, identify low-risk trade entities for supply chain security and trade compliance, and increase the overall efficiency of trade by segmenting risk and processing by account. This Program applies to importer participants who have satisfied C-TPAT supply chain security and trade compliance requirements. The Trusted Trader application will include questions about the following:

    Name and contact information for the applicant;

    Business information including business type, CBP Bond information, and number of employees;

    Information about the applicant's Supply Chain Security Profile; and

    Trade Compliance Profile and Operating Procedures of the applicant.

    CBP is developing an on-line application for the Trusted Trader Program which will be available through the C-TPAT portal. The draft Trusted Trader Program application may be viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Trusted%20Trader%20Application.pdf.

    After an importer obtains Trusted Trader Program membership, the importer will be required to submit an Annual Notification Letter to CBP confirming that they are continuing to meet the requirements of the Trusted Trader Program. This letter should include: Personnel changes that impact the Trusted Trader Program; organizational and procedural changes; a summary of risk assessment and self-testing results; a summary of post-entry amendments and/or disclosures made to CBP; and any importer activity changes within the last 12-month period.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to revise the current information collection by adding the Trusted Trader Application and Annual Notification Letter. The estimated number of annual C-TPAT applicants was decreased, and the estimated time to complete the C-TPAT application was increased, in accordance with public comments received. Also, the estimated number of annual respondents associated with the Trusted Trader application and Annual Notification Letter were decreased, and the time to complete these tasks was increased, based on public comments received.

    Type of Review: Revision.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    C-TPAT Program Application:

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,000.

    Trusted Trader Program Application:

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.

    Trusted Trader Program's Annual Notification Letter:

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21463 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1520] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed notice; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas.

    DATES:

    This withdrawal is effective August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1520, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 1, 2015, FEMA published a proposed notice at 80 FR 37647, proposing flood hazard determinations for Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notice.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: August 20, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21509 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2015-N165; FXES11120800000-145-FF08EVEN00] Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan, Southern California Gas Company, Pipeline 1010—Purisima, Santa Barbara County, California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an application from Southern California Gas Company for a 5-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally endangered California tiger salamander and the federally threatened California red-legged frog, likely to occur incidental to excavation and maintenance of a gas pipeline between Buellton and Lompoc, in Santa Barbara County, California. We invite comments from the public on the application package, which includes the low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the endangered California tiger salamander and the threatened California red-legged frog. You may download a copy of the draft HCP at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or you may request copies by U.S. mail or phone (see below).

    DATES:

    We will accept comments received or postmarked by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To request further information or submit comments related to the permit application or HCP, please use one of these methods:

    1. U.S. Mail: You may mail written comments to Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Rd., Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.

    2. In-Person Drop-off: You may hand-deliver written comments to the U.S. mail address above.

    3. Email: You may submit comments by electronic mail to [email protected] If submitting an electronic mail attachment, please use one of these document formats: Adobe portable document format (.pdf), Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx), rich text file (.rtf), ASCII or Unicode plaintext (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls, .xlsx), Word Perfect (.wpd), or Microsoft Works (.wps).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Simmons, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by U.S. mail at the address above, or by telephone at (805) 644-1766. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice advises the public that we received an application from Southern California Gas Company (applicant) for a 5-year incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally endangered California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (collectively, covered species) likely to occur incidental to the excavation and maintenance of pipeline 1010 at four locations between the cities of Buellton and Lompoc, Santa Barbara County, California. The applicant prepared an HCP that includes a conservation program to avoid and minimize effects on suitable habitat for the covered species and the likelihood of take as a result of activities covered in the HCP. The applicant also would mitigate for incidental take of the covered species likely to result from activities covered in the HCP. In response to the applicant's permit application, we completed a screening form for low-effect HCPs and determined that the HCP qualifies as a low-effect plan and our proposed action (issuing an ITP to the applicant) is eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We invite the public to comment on the application package, which includes the HCP, the draft screening form, and associated documents.

    Background

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) listed the Santa Barbara County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). The Service listed the California red-legged frog as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813). Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the Act to include the following activities: “To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Under limited circumstances consistent with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are provided at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. In addition to meeting other criteria, activities covered by an incidental take permit must not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species in the wild. Under the Service's “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)), permittees properly implementing an HCP are provided assurances for each species covered by the HCP.

    Proposed Action and Alternatives

    Southern California Gas proposes to excavate, inspect, and, if necessary, repair a natural gas pipeline at four locations along the Highway 246 corridor between the cities of Buellton and Lompoc in Santa Barbara County. The project purpose is to inspect identified anomalies in the pipeline, ensure pipeline integrity, and comply with rules and regulations related to pipeline safety—specifically, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 and all State and Federal regulations promulgated since that time. Each of the four excavation sites would be 1,600 square feet or less, and the project would disturb a maximum of 1.04 acres. The Applicant would use existing roadways to access the dig areas to the extent possible to minimize habitat disturbance. Southern California Gas expects to complete the project in 16 weeks or less.

    All four dig locations are in suitable upland habitat for the covered species and within dispersal distance of breeding habitat. The covered activities could cause take during equipment staging and excavating the dig sites, as well as through capture and relocation; however, the latter is intended to reduce the likelihood of injury or death of the covered species by moving individuals out of harm's way.

    The conservation program described in the HCP includes measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the covered species, including but not limited to worker training sessions; surveys and monitoring of work areas; relocating individuals of the covered species observed in work areas; and daily, seasonal, and weather-specific work restrictions. The applicant will limit ground disturbance to a total of 1.04 acres of upland habitat. No work will be conducted in any streams, drainages, riparian areas, wetlands, or other aquatic features, and the project would not disturb aquatic breeding habitat for the covered species. The applicant will provide off-site mitigation for temporary impacts to upland habitat and any impacts of taking the covered species as a result of the project by purchasing credits in the La Purisima Conservation Bank.

    In the HCP, the applicant considers two alternatives to the proposed taking of the covered species: “No Action” and “Redesigned Project.” Under the “No Action” alternative, Southern California Gas would not submit a permit application to the Service and would not receive an ITP for pipeline maintenance activities. This alternative would avoid impacts to the covered species; however, this alternative also would preclude maintenance of the pipeline and, for this reason, the applicant rejected the “No Action” alternative. Under the “Redesigned Project” alternative, the applicant would relocate the proposed staging area to reduce impacts to upland habitat for the covered species. However, realistic alternative locations for the staging area would be either closer to breeding habitat for the covered species or adjacent to Highway 246. The applicant rejected this alternative due to increased potential effects to the covered species and increased risk to project workers.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    We are requesting comments on our preliminary determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the covered species and that the plan qualifies as a low-effect HCP as defined by our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). We base our determinations on three criteria: (1) Implementation of the proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the HCP, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that would be considered significant. Based on our analysis of these criteria, we made a preliminary determination that approval of the HCP and issuance of an ITP to Southern California Gas qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as provided by the Department of Interior Manual (43 CFR 46 and 516 DM 8). Based on our review of public comments that we receive in response to this notice, we may revise this preliminary determination.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the permit application, including the HCP and comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32). We also will evaluate whether issuance of the ITP would comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Act by conducting an intra-Service consultation consistent with section 7 of the Act. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue an ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue the ITP to the Applicant for the incidental take of the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice.

    Public Comments

    You may submit comments on the permit application, HCP, screening form, and associated documents by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, electronic mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: August 24, 2015. Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21457 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18957; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: History Colorado, Formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    History Colorado, formerly Colorado Historical Society, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to History Colorado. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to History Colorado at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of History Colorado, Denver, CO. Seven sets of remains were received from the Montezuma County Coroner. They were recovered from the vicinity of Cortez or Rangely, Colorado.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by History Colorado professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes and the Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation, South Dakota; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation were invited to consult, but did not participate. Hereafter, all tribes listed above are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

    History and Description of the Remains

    Sometime before 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from the vicinity of Cortez or Rangely, CO, by private citizens. Their son discovered the remains when settling his parents' estate and was put in touch with the Montezuma County Coroner, who ruled out a forensic interest in the human remains October 2014. The remains were then transferred to the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSAC), where they are identified as Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Case Number 307. Osteological analysis by Nicholas Zell of Metropolitan State University indicates that the human remains are likely of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Sometime in the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a farm near Cortez, CO, by a private citizen. His wife discovered them among her late husband's possessions. In September 2014, she turned them over to the Montezuma County Coroner, who ruled out forensic interest in the human remains. In January 2015, the remains were transferred to the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSAC), where they are identified as Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Case Number 308. Osteological analysis by Christiane Baigent of Metropolitan State University indicates that the human remains are likely of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    History Colorado, in partnership with the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah, conducted tribal consultations among the tribes with ancestral ties to the State of Colorado to develop the process for disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains and associated funerary objects originating from inadvertent discoveries on Colorado State and private lands. As a result of the consultation, a process was developed, Process for Consultation, Transfer, and Reburial of Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects Originating From Inadvertent Discoveries on Colorado State and Private Lands, (2008, unpublished, on file with the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). The tribes consulted are those who have expressed their wishes to be notified of discoveries in the Southwest and Basin and Plateau Consultation Regions as established by the Process, where these individuals originated.

    The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) is responsible for recommending specific actions for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. On November 3-4, 2006, the Process was presented to the Review Committee for consideration. A January 8, 2007, letter on behalf of the Review Committee from the Designated Federal Officer transmitted the provisional authorization to proceed with the Process upon receipt of formal responses from the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico, and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, subject to forthcoming conditions imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. On May 15-16, 2008, the responses from the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico, and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma were submitted to the Review Committee. On September 23, 2008, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, as the designee for the Secretary of the Interior, transmitted the authorization for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains according to the Process and NAGPRA, pending publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register. This notice fulfills that requirement.

    43 CFR 10.11 was promulgated on March 15, 2010, to provide a process for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains recovered from tribal or aboriginal lands as established by the final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or U.S. Court of Claims, a treaty, Act of Congress, or Executive Order, or other authoritative governmental sources. As there is no evidence indicating that the human remains reported in this notice originated from tribal or aboriginal lands, they are eligible for disposition under the Process.

    Determinations Made by History Colorado

    Officials of History Colorado have determined that:

    • Based on osteological analysis, the human remains are Native American.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(ii) and the Process, the disposition of the human remains may be to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed.

    History Colorado is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: June 29, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21493 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18960; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, and the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks, AK AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region (Alaska Region USFWS), and the University of Alaska Museum of the North have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Alaska Native Tribes, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and a present-day Alaska Native Tribe. Representatives of any Alaska Native Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Alaska Region USFWS. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Alaska Native Tribe stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Alaska Native Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Alaska Region USFWS at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Edward J. DeCleva, Regional Historic Preservation Officer/Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 786-3399, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Alaska Region USFWS and housed at the University of Alaska Museum of the North. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Turner River archaeological site (XDP-00037), in North Slope Borough, AK.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Alaska Region USFWS and the University of Alaska Museum of the North professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Native Village of Kaktovik.

    History and Description of the Remains

    The Turner River Overlook archeological site (XDP-00037), also referred to as Lorenz Overlook, is located on the North Slope of Alaska within the boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Professional archeological excavations were carried out at the site between 1977 and 1980, led by Curtis J. Wilson who reported on these excavations in his 1991 Ph.D. dissertation. All of the human remains and associated funerary objects removed from this site by Wilson were placed in three different accessions at the University of Alaska Museum of the North: UA78-388, UA79-231, and UA80-203.

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals, were removed from site XDP-00037. The human remains in accession UA78-388 are the partial remains of one adult female, one adult male, two adults of indeterminate sex, and one perinatal individual of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 864 associated funerary objects are 685 beads, 38 projectile points, 8 knives, 1 drill bearing, 1 wrist guard, 6 fishhook shanks, 1 harpoon head, 11 pieces of birch bark, 3 labrets, 2 quartz crystals, 1 axe head, 1 ground stone, 1 sled runner, 2 scrapers, 1 whetstone, 1 toy bow fragment, 3 net gauges, 1 line spreader, 1 ladle, 1 bird blunt, 1 piece of ochre, 30 faunal remains, 10 pieces of worked wood, 21 metal fragments, 3 pieces of worked ivory, 15 pieces of worked antler, 10 pieces of worked bone, 2 flakes, 2 pebbles, and 1 cobble.

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from site XDP-00037. The human remains in accession 79-231 are the partial remains of five adult females, one adult of indeterminate sex, one juvenile of indeterminate sex, and four adult males. No known individuals were identified. The 263 associated funerary objects are 8 beads, 15 burned stones, 1 cooking stone, 1 projectile point, 2 flakes, 2 pieces of wood, 4 metal fragments, 1 piece of worked ivory, 4 pieces of worked antler, 1 piece of worked wood, 17 pieces of worked bone, 131 faunal remains, 6 stones, and 70 pebbles.

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from site XDP-00037. The human remains in accession UA80-203 are the partial remains of one adult female, two adult males, one juvenile of indeterminate sex, and one sub-adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 3,776 associated funerary objects are 1 awl, 1 piece of bark, 204 beads, 4 biface fragments, 2 bow fragments, 8 burned stones, 5 core fragments, 1 end scraper, 2,430 faunal remains, 9 fire spalls, 2 flagging stones, 135 flakes, 1 glass bottle fragment, 7 pieces of ground stone, 1 harpoon point, 2 knives, 1 knife handle, 3 labrets, 4 lamps, 7 lamp fragments, 1 piece of lead shot, 17 metal fragments, 2 nails, 659 pebbles, 19 projectile points, 2 quartz crystals, 2 rock spalls, 1 sandstone tool, 29 pieces of slate, 6 stones, 1 piece of tar, 1 ulu blade, 6 pieces of wood, 38 pieces of worked antler, 89 pieces of worked bone, 1 piece of worked ivory, 4 worked stones, and 70 pieces of worked wood.

    Based the geographic location, the condition of the human remains, and morphology, all of the human remains described in this notice are determined to be Native American. The removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects from surface burials or shallow graves is consistent with a common pre-contact and contact era burial practice in the region to lay the deceased out either directly on the surface or enclosed in a box on the surface. Kaktovik is an Alaska Native village in the North Slope Borough and is located on the northern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Archeological studies and oral traditions show that there is at least 1,000 years of continuity between present-day and past peoples living on the North Slope of Alaska. Based on this information, the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice are determined to be culturally affiliated with Native American tribal members residing in Kaktovik, AK, today, represented by the Native Village of Kaktovik.

    Determinations Made by the Alaska Region USFWS and the University of Alaska Museum of the North

    Officials of the Alaska Region USFWS and the University of Alaska Museum of the North have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 21 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 4,903 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Native Village of Kaktovik.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Alaska Native Tribe not identified in this notice that wishes to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Edward DeCleva, Regional Historic Preservation Officer/Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, 1011 E. Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99013, telephone (907) 786-3399, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Native Village of Kaktovik may proceed.

    The Alaska Region, USFWS and the University of Alaska Museum of the North are responsible for notifying the Native Village of Kaktovik that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21498 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18961; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Fort Benning, GA; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Fort Benning, GA, has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on August 29, 2002. This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the U.S. Army, Fort Benning, GA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the U.S. Army, Fort Benning, GA at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. Christopher E. Hamilton, Coordinator for Native American Affairs, 6500 Meloy Drive, Room 309, Fort Benning, GA 31905, telephone (706) 545-4211, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Army, Fort Benning, GA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Russell County, AL.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (67 FR 55426, August 29, 2002). Human remains and associated funerary objects were discovered when the National Infantry Museum re-examined its collection in August of 2014. The human remains and associated funerary objects were excavated during the River Basin Survey of 1958 by the Smithsonian Institute at site 1Ru63, in Russell County, AL. The human remains were misidentified as “Rabbit Bones” on an exhibit card. The human remains are believed to be part of the individuals already listed in a Notice of Inventory Completion, and therefore the minimum number of individuals listed in the original notice has not changed. This notice only corrects the number of associated funerary objects listed in that notice. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (67 FR 55426, August 29, 2002), paragraph 13 is corrected by replacing sentences 6 and 7 with the following:

    In August 2014, associated funerary objects were found at the National Infantry Museum and are believed to be the items noted in the original field notes that were unavailable for review in 2002. The additional associated funerary objects are 2 brass bells, 1 iron buckle, 3 copper buttons, 1 ceramic pipe bowl fragment, 1 conch columella, and 1 ceramic bowl.

    In the Federal Register (67 FR 55426, August 29, 2002), paragraph 16, sentence 2 is corrected by replacing the number 1551 with the number 1560.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Christopher E. Hamilton, Coordinator for Native American Affairs, 6500 Meloy Drive, Room 309, Fort Benning, GA 31905, telephone (706) 545-4211, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Chickasaw Nation; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; the Kialegee Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; the Seminole Tribe of Florida; and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma may proceed.

    The U.S. Army, Fort Benning, GA is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Chickasaw Nation; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; the Kialegee Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; the Seminole Tribe of Florida; and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21495 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18956; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. David Carlson, NAGPRA Coordinator, Attn: Timothy S. de Smet, Interim Curator, Department of Anthropology, TAMU MS 4352, College Station, TX 77843-4352, telephone (979) 845-5242, email [email protected] and [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. The human remains were removed from Aycock Shelter, Bell County, TX.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University (ARC-TAMU) professional staff in 1995. In 2015, representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma, were invited to consult with ARC-TAMU for the purpose of determining the place and manner of repatriation. The Caddo Nation of Oklahoma contacted ARC-TAMU, and the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma, visited the facility; no representatives from the other tribes contacted ARC-TAMU in response to this invitation.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Aycock Shelter/Shelter 14 (41BL28) in Bell County, TX, by the Texas A&M University Anthropology Club. The human remains from the site were identified as being from Feature 14 a and b (TAMU-NAGPRA 76). The human remains were determined to be one adult of indeterminate sex. Dart points found nearby date the human remains to the Early Ceramic period (before A.D. 700). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Based on the geographic location of the site, ARC-TAMU staff found it reasonable to trace a shared identity between the human remains in this notice and the following historic groups: Ervipiame, Mayeye, Yojuane, Comanche, Kickapoo, Tonkawa, Tunica and Biloxi, Wichita, Caddo, Waco, Anadarko, and Kiowa. Archeological and linguistic evidence, historical records, and/or traditional beliefs indicate that there is a relationship of shared group identity between these historic groups and the present-day Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

    Determinations Made by the Anthropology Research Collections at Texas A&M University

    Officials of the ARC-TAMU have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. David Carlson, NAGPRA Coordinator, Department of Anthropology, TAMU MS 4352, College Station, TX 77843-4352, telephone (979) 845-5242, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

    The ARC-TAMU is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21492 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18954;PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: New York State Museum, Albany, NY AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The New York State Museum, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the New York State Museum. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the New York State Museum at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230, telephone (518) 486-2020, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the New York State Museum, Albany, NY, that meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item(s)

    In 1898, Harriet Maxwell Converse of New York City, NY, donated 34 cultural items to the New York State Museum. The cultural items are 31 wooden medicine masks (E-36868, E-35, E-36919, E-37013, E-37014, E-37020, E-37021, E-37026, E-37028, E-37032, E-37035, E-37036, E-37040, E-37041, E-37044, E-37046, E-37058, E-37060, E-37060A, E-37597, E-37606, E-37607, E-37610, E-37611, E-37612, E-37617, E-37619, E-37620, E-37622, E-37625, E-42) and 3 cornhusk medicine masks (E-36747, E-36926, E-36927).

    In the late 19th century, Adelbert G. Richmond of Canajoharie, NY, acquired two cultural items. The cultural items are two wooden medicine masks (E-37025, E-37055).

    In 1956, three cultural items were purchased from the Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, WI. The cultural items were part of a larger collection made by Albert Green Heath. The three cultural items are one large wooden medicine mask (E-50317) and two miniature wooden medicine masks (E-50313, E-50314).

    In 1961, one cultural item was acquired from Judith Drumm, a former museum educator. The cultural item is a cornhusk medicine mask (E-50465).

    In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, 25 cultural items identified as Iroquois were acquired from unknown individuals. The 25 cultural items are 17 wooden medicine masks (E-36910, E-36913, E-37019, E-37034, E-37049, E-37051, E-37052, E-37599, E-37600, E-37602, E-37609, E-37615, E-37624, E-37627, E-39325, E-5, E-no#79), five cornhusk medicine masks (E-13A, E-13B, E-36748, E-36923, E-36926), and three miniature cornhusk masks (E-36632, E-51025A, E-51025B).

    Museum records identify the affiliation of the 65 objects described in this notice as “Iroquois.” According to oral evidence presented during consultation with the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules and Regulations, the Onondaga Nation is the keeper of the central fire of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. As the keeper of the central fire, the Onondaga Nation has the responsibility to care for and return to the appropriate Nation Haudenosaunee cultural objects that are not specifically affiliated with any one Haudenosaunee Nation. Therefore, it is the understanding of all the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Nations that any medicine masks affiliated generally as “Iroquois” are affiliated with the Onondaga Nation.

    Determinations Made by the New York State Museum

    Officials of the New York State Museum have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the 65 cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents, and have an ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony and the Onondaga Nation on behalf of Haudenosaunee Confederacy Nations.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, 3049 Cultural Education Center, Albany, NY 12230, telephone (518) 486-2020, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony to the Onondaga Nation may proceed.

    The New York State Museum is responsible for notifying the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Nation of New York; Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and Tuscarora Nation that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21499 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18959; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Stanislaus National Forest. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Stanislaus National Forest at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jeanie Higgins, Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370, telephone (209) 536-3671, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In 1979 and 1981, 45 cultural items were removed from site CA-TUO-0979 in Calaveras County, CA. The site was used as a burial ground for certain groups of the Central Sierra Miwok as late as the early twentieth century. During monitoring between October 1979 and December 1981, evidence of site looting was documented by Stanislaus National Forest Heritage Program personnel. At that time, a number of cultural items were collected from the “backdirt” left over from looting activities. Human remains were noted in direct association with these cultural items, although no human remains were collected. The 45 unassociated funerary objects are 1 whole abalone shell, 6 abalone pendants, 14 whole Olivella shells (5 are drilled), 9 Olivella spire-lopped shell beads, 5 clam shell disk beads, 9 glass trade beads (4 simple white beads, 2 compound white beads, and 3 red-on-black Cornaline d'Allepo beads), and 1 metal button with a glass acorn decoration.

    After consultation with the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California and Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians, a non-federally recognized Indian group, a lineal descendant of the individual buried at the site, Dora Mata, was identified. Ms. Mata was no longer living and attempts to contact her son were unsuccessful. Rose Russell, a granddaughter of Dora Mata, contacted the Stanislaus National Forest and made a request for repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects. The Stanislaus National Forest determined Rose Russell is a lineal descendant of the individual buried at the site from which the unassociated funerary objects were removed.

    Determinations Made by the Stanislaus National Forest

    Officials of the Stanislaus National Forest have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 45 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3005(a)(5)(A), Rose Russell is the direct lineal descendant of the individual associated with the cultural items.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Jeanie Higgins, Forest Supervisor, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370, telephone (209) 536-3671, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Rose Russell may proceed.

    The Stanislaus National Forest is responsible for notifying the California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21501 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18962; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Anthropology at Indiana University has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Indiana University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Indiana University at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Indiana University professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were donated to the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University from the Cincinnati Society of Natural History. Notes indicate that these human remains may have been part of the Chicago Historical Society collections prior to 1950. The human remains are labeled as being from an Osage individual. No other information is available. No known individual is identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Determinations Made by Indiana University

    Officials of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) may proceed.

    Indiana University is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21496 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18953; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University (Texas State), has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Texas State. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the non-Federally recognized Indian group stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Texas State at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Todd M. Ahlman, Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, telephone (512) 245-2724, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX. The human remains were removed from site 41HY160, San Marcos, Hays County, TX.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Texas State professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas). The following tribes were also invited to participate in consultations, but there is no record of their having responded: Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kialegee Tribal Town; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); The Quapaw Tribe of Indians; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma (hereafter tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes”). Texas State professional staff also consulted with the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan people, a non-federally recognized Indian group.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In December 2011, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 40HY160 in Hays County, TX, following their inadvertent discovery during a construction project on the campus grounds of Texas State. A prehistoric date for the site is based on the artifacts excavated and removed from the site. At the request of Texas State University's Center for Archaeological Studies, osteological analysis of the remains was performed by Drs. Kate Spradley and Michelle Hamilton of the Department of Anthropology. Additional osteological cleaning, sorting, and reconstruction assistance was provided by four graduate students (C. Figueroa-Soto, M. McClain, L. Springs, and C. Tegtmeyer). The human remains were determined to be those of a Native American adult male of prehistoric date. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the Secretary of the Interior may make a recommendation for a transfer of control of culturally unidentifiable human remains. In January 2015, Texas State requested that the Secretary, through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, recommend the proposed transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains in this notice to the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan people, a non-federally recognized Indian group. The Review Committee, acting pursuant to its responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(5), considered the request at its March 2015 meeting and recommended to the Secretary that the proposed transfer of control proceed. A June 10, 2015, letter on behalf of the Secretary of Interior from the National Park Service Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science transmitted the Secretary's independent review and concurrence with the Review Committee that:

    • Texas State consulted with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations;

    • Texas State determined that a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribe, based on consultation;

    • Texas State determined that the human remains did not originate from either the tribal land or the aboriginal land of any Indian tribe,

    • none of the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations requested transfer of control of the human remains;

    • none of the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations has identified any individual or Indian tribe affiliated with the human remains through lineal descent, culture, or geography; and

    • Texas State may proceed with the agreed upon transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan people, a non-federally recognized Indian group.

    Transfer of control is contingent on the publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register. This notice fulfills that requirement.

    Determinations Made by the Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University

    Officials of the Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on an osteological analysis and prehistoric artifacts not associated with the human remains.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the disposition of the human remains will be to the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan people, a non-federally recognized Indian group.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Todd M. Ahlman, Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, telephone (512) 245-2724, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan people, a non-federally recognized Indian group, may proceed.

    The Center for Archaeological Studies is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21488 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18955; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Dallas Water Utilities, Dallas, Texas AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Dallas Water Utilities has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Dallas Water Utilities. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Dallas Water Utilities at the address in this notice by September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Terry Hodgins, 405 Long Creek Road, Sunnyvale, TX 75182, telephone (214) 670-8658, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Dallas Water Utilities. The human remains were removed from Lake Ray Hubbard, Rockwall County, TX.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by AR Consultants, Inc. and Dallas Water Utilities professional staff in initial consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakoni).

    History and Description of the Remains

    In November 2011 and in the fall of 2013, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from site 41RW2 in Rockwall County, TX, near the Shores Golf Course. The human remains were found along the lakebed exposed by low reservoir water levels. The lake is property of the City of Dallas, but the area in which the remains were found is in Rockwall County. Human remains on the surface of the lakebed were collected and released to the Dallas County Medical Examiner's Office for identification. Once the remains were determined to be of no forensic significance, Dallas Water Utilities was notified of their presence. Dallas Water Utilities contacted Dr. Catrina Banks Whitley of AR Consultants, Inc. to conduct skeletal analysis and to assist in determining potential disposition options. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Site 41RW2, the Upper Rockwall Site, is a Wiley Focus Site dating from A.D. 1 to 1500. The site was excavated by the Dallas Archeological Society in 1963, and the subsequent report describes the site as being very extensive, 400 yards by 150 yards, and is in the west end of a terrace adjacent to the East Fork of the Trinity River. During those excavations, the Dallas Archeological Society encountered nine burials, shell pits, shell cooking pits, and numerous artifacts including pottery, lithic debris, points, beads, awls, bone needles, and bone pins. The burials included cremated and primary interments, some with funerary objects such as conch shell beads. The site was excavated again in 1966 by the Texas Archeological Salvage Project. Approximately nine trenches were placed across the site and excavation by hand occurred. Two primary interments were excavated that included a broken sherd, worked mussel shell, gar scales, and fish vertebrae in one grave and small shell beads and large conch shell beads, near the neck of the other burial. Additional non-funerary items included bifaces, knives, pottery, and beads among others.

    Given the location and age of the site, a relationship of shared group identity can be reasonably traced between the human remains and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakoni).

    Determinations Made by the Dallas Water Utilities

    Officials of the Dallas Water Utilities and AR Consultants, Inc. have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum number of six individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakoni).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Terry Hodgins, 405 Long Creek Road, Sunnyvale, TX, 75182, telephone (214) 670-8658, email [email protected], by September 30, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma or the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakoni) may proceed.

    The Dallas Water Utilities is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakoni) that this notice has been published.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21490 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2011-0019; DS63610000 DR2PS0000.CH7000 156D0102R2] Agency Information Collection Activities: Accounts Receivable Confirmations—OMB Control Number 1012-0001; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of renewal of an existing Information Collection.

    SUMMARY:

    To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is inviting comments on an information collection request that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the paperwork requirements under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO). This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of the regulatory requirements.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on or before September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit your written comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB Control Number 1012-0001), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by email to [email protected] or telefax at (202) 395-5806. Please also mail a copy of your comments to Mr. Luis Aguilar, Regulatory Specialist, ONRR, P.O. Box 25165, MS 61030A, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165, or email [email protected] Please reference OMB Control Number 1012-0001 in your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on technical issues, contact Mr. Hans Meingast, Financial Management, ONRR, telephone (303) 231-3382, or email at [email protected] For other questions, contact Mr. Luis Aguilar, telephone (303) 231-3418, or email [email protected] You may also contact Mr. Aguilar to obtain copies (free of charge) of (1) the ICR, (2) any associated forms, and (3) the regulations that require the subject collection of information. You may also review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Abstract

    The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under various laws, the Secretary's responsibility is to manage mineral resources production on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties, and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected under those laws. Public laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS are posted at http://www.onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/PubLaws/default.htm.

    The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. Minerals produced from Federal and Indian leases vary greatly in the nature of occurrence, production, and processing methods. When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure that production is accurately valued and that royalties are appropriately paid.

    Every year, under the CFO, the Department's Office of Inspector General, or its agent (agent), audits the Department's financial statements. The Department's goal is to receive an unqualified opinion. Accounts receivable confirmations are a common practice in the audit business. Due to continuously increasing scrutiny on financial audits, third-party confirmation on the validity of ONRR's financial records is necessary.

    As part of CFO audits, the agent requests, by a specified date, third-party confirmation responses confirming that ONRR accounts receivable records agree with royalty payor records, for the following items: customer identification; royalty/invoice number; payor-assigned document number; date received; original amount reported; and remaining balance due ONRR as of a specified date. In order to meet this requirement, ONRR must mail letters on ONRR letterhead, signed by the Deputy Director for Office of Natural Resources Revenue, to royalty payors selected by the agent at random, asking them to respond to the agent, confirming the accuracy and/or validity of selected royalty receivable items and amounts. Verifying the amounts reported and the balances due requires time for research and analysis by payors.

    This collection does not require proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information not protected by agency procedures. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. The requirement to respond is voluntary.

    OMB Approval

    We are requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge the duties of the office and may also result in the loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.

    II. Data

    Title: Accounts Receivable Confirmations.

    OMB Control Number: 1012-0001.

    Bureau Form Number: None.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 24 randomly selected Federal and Indian oil and gas and solid mineral royalty payors.

    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 6 hours. We estimate that each response will take 15 minutes for payors to complete.

    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Cost Burden: We have identified no “non-hour” cost burden associated with the collection of information.

    III. Request for Comments

    Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency to “. . . publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register . . . and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information . . . .” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in the Federal Register on February 10, 2015 (80 FR 7494), announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. We received no comments in response to the notice.

    If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by September 30, 2015.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor—and a person is not required to respond to—a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Public Comment Policy: ONRR will post all comments, including names and addresses of respondents at http://www.regulations.gov. Before including Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comment(s), you should be aware that your entire comment (including PII) may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 27, 2015. Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21621 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 156S180110S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 15XS501520] Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0035 AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing that the information collection request for surface and underground mining permit applications—minimum requirements for information on environmental resources, has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost. This information collection activity was previously approved by OMB and assigned control number 1029-0035.

    DATES:

    OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collections but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by September 30, 2015, in order to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 395-5806 or via email to [email protected] Also, please send a copy of your comments to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or electronically to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at [email protected] You may also review this information collection request on the Internet by going to http://www.reginfo.gov (Information Collection Review, Currently Under Review, Agency is Department of the Interior, DOI-OSMRE).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSMRE has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information contained in 30 CFR parts 779 and 783—Surface and Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources. OSMRE is requesting a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0035. Responses are required to obtain a benefit for this collection.

    As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 27, 2015 (80 FR 23285). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activities:

    Title: 30 CFR parts 779 and 783—Surface and Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Environmental Resources.

    OMB Control Number: 1029-0035.

    Summary: Applicants for surface and underground coal mining permits are required to provide adequate descriptions of the environmental resources that may be affected by proposed mining activities. The information will be used by the regulatory authority to determine if the applicant can comply with environmental protection performance standards.

    Bureau Form Number: None.

    Frequency of Collection: Once.

    Description of Respondents: 190 coal mining operators and 24 state regulatory authorities.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,890.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 162,766.

    Total Annual Non-Wage Burden Cost: $0.

    Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed in ADDRESSES. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Harry J. Payne, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21450 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 156S180110S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 15XS501520] Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0043 AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing that the information collection request for bonding and insurance requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations under regulatory programs has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost.

    DATES:

    OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collections but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by September 30, 2015, in order to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 395-5806 or via email to [email protected] Also, please send a copy of your comments to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or electronically to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at [email protected] You may also review this information collection request on the Internet by going to http://www.reginfo.gov (Information Collection Review, Currently Under Review, Agency is Department of the Interior, DOI-OSMRE).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval for the collection of information contained in 30 CFR part 800—Bonding and insurance requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations under regulatory programs. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0043 for 30 CFR 800.

    As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments for this collection of information was published on April 27, 2015, (80 FR 23284). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activities:

    Title: 30 CFR part 800—Bond and insurance requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations under regulatory programs.

    OMB Control Number: 1029-0043.

    Summary: The regulations at 30 CFR part 800 primarily implement § 509 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which requires that persons planning to conduct surface coal mining operations first post a performance bond to guarantee fulfillment of all reclamation obligations under the approved permit. The regulations also establish bond release requirements and procedures consistent with § 519 of the Act, liability insurance requirements pursuant to § 507(f) of the Act, and procedures for bond forfeiture should the permittee default on reclamation obligations.

    Bureau Form Number: None.

    Frequency of Collection: Once.

    Description of Respondents: Surface coal mining and reclamation applicants and State regulatory authorities.

    Total Annual Responses: 13,159.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 147,817 hours.

    Total Annual Cost Burden: $1,499,614.

    Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed in ADDRESSES. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 25, 2015. Harry J. Payne, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21443 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Review)] Woven Electric Blankets From China; Termination of Five-year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission instituted the subject five-year review in July 2015 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on woven electric blankets from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. On August 18, 2015, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective August 18, 2015, because “no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate in response to the Initiation Notice by the applicable deadline.” (80 FR 49987, August 18, 2015). Accordingly, the subject review is terminated.

    DATES:

    Effective August 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Szustakowski (202-205-3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

    Authority:

    This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). This notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: August 26, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21466 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States v. Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01366. On August 24, 2015, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd., Third Point Ultra, Ltd., and Third Point Partners Qualified L.P. (collectively “the Defendant Funds”) violated the premerger notification and reporting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 18a in connection with the acquisition of voting securities of Yahoo! Inc. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, prohibits the Defendant Funds, along with Defendant Third Point LLC, from acquiring a reportable amount of voting securities of an issuer in reliance on the exemption from the HSR Act of acquisitions made solely for the purpose of investment if they have taken certain specified actions in the four months prior to the acquisition.

    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.

    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet Web site, filed with the Court and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to Daniel P. Ducore, Special Attorney, c/o Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, [email protected] (telephone: 202-326-2526).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    United States of America, c/o Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, Plaintiff, v. Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd., c/o Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-9001, Cayman Islands, Third Point Ultra, Ltd., c/o Walkers Chambers, 171 Main Street, P.O. Box 92, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, Third Point Partners Qualified L.P., 390 Park Ave, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022, and Third Point, LLC, 390 Park Ave., 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Defendants.

    Case No.: 1:15-cv-01366 Judge: Ketanji Brown Jackson Filed: 08/24/2015 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PREMERGER REPORTING AND WAITING REQUIREMENTS OF THE HART-SCOTT-RODINO ACT

    The United States of America, Plaintiff, by its attorneys, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States and at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, brings this civil antitrust action to obtain injunctive relief against Defendants Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd. (“Third Point Offshore”), Third Point Ultra, Ltd. (“Third Point Ultra”), Third Point Partners Qualified L.P. (“Third Point Partners”) (collectively, “Defendant Funds”), and Third Point LLC (together with the Defendant Funds collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges as follows:

    NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. Defendant Funds violated the notice and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 18a (“HSR Act” or “Act”), with respect to the acquisition of voting securities of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) in August and September 2011.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 7A(g) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355, and over the Defendants by virtue of Defendants' consent, in the Stipulation relating hereto, to the maintenance of this action and entry of the Final Judgment in this District.

    3. Venue is properly based in this District by virtue of Defendants' consent, in the Stipulation relating hereto, to the maintenance of this action and entry of the Final Judgment in this District.

    THE DEFENDANTS

    4. Defendant Third Point Offshore is an offshore fund organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, with its principal office and place of businessc/o Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-9001, Cayman Islands.

    5. Defendant Third Point Ultra is an offshore fund organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, with its principal office and place of businessc/o Walkers Chambers, 171 Main Street, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.

    6. Defendant Third Point Partners is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business at 390 Park Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022.

    7. Defendant Third Point LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business at 390 Park Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Third Point LLC makes all the investment decisions for each of the Defendant Funds, including decisions to nominate a candidate to the board of directors of a company in which Defendants have invested or to launch a proxy fight to obtain board representation on behalf of Defendants.

    8. Defendants are engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12, and Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1). At all times relevant to this complaint, each Defendant Fund had total assets in excess of $13.2 million.

    OTHER ENTITIES

    9. Yahoo is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. Yahoo is engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12, and Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1). At all times relevant to this complaint, Yahoo had annual net sales in excess of $131.9 million.

    THE HART-SCOTT-RODINO ACT AND RULES

    10. The HSR Act requires certain acquiring persons and certain persons whose voting securities or assets are acquired to file notifications with the federal antitrust agencies and to observe a waiting period before consummating certain acquisitions of voting securities or assets. 15 U.S.C. 18a(a) and (b). The HSR Act's notification and waiting period are intended to give the federal antitrust agencies prior notice of, and information about, proposed transactions. The waiting period is also intended to provide the federal antitrust agencies with an opportunity to investigate a proposed transaction and to determine whether to seek an injunction to prevent the consummation of a transaction that may violate the antitrust laws.

    11. The HSR Act's notification and waiting period requirements apply to acquisitions that meet the HSR Act's thresholds, which are adjusted annually. During the period of 2011 pertinent to this Complaint, the HSR Act's reporting and waiting period requirements applied to transactions that would result in the acquiring person holding more than $66 million, if certain size of person tests were met, except for certain exempted transactions.

    12. Section (c)(9) of the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(c)(9), exempts from the requirements of the HSR Act acquisitions of voting securities “solely for the purpose of investment” if, as a result of the acquisition, the securities held do not exceed 10 percent of the outstanding voting securities of the issuer.

    13. Pursuant to Section (d)(2) of the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(d)(2), the Federal Trade Commission promulgated rules to carry out the purpose of the HSR Act. 16 CFR 801-03 (“HSR Rules”). The HSR Rules, among other things, define terms contained in the HSR Act.

    14. Section 801.2(a) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.2(a), provides that “[a]ny person which, as a result of an acquisition, will hold voting securities” is deemed an “acquiring person.”

    15. Section 801.1(a)(1) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.1(a)(1), provides that the term “person” means “an ultimate parent entity and all entities which it controls directly or indirectly.”

    16. Section 801.1(a)(3) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.1(a)(3), provides that the term “ultimate parent entity” means “an entity which is not controlled by any other entity.”

    17. Each of the Defendant Funds is its own ultimate parent entity and Defendant Third Point LLC does not control any of the Defendant Funds within the meaning of the HSR Rules.

    18. Pursuant to Section 801.13(a)(1) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.13(a)(1), “all voting securities of [an] issuer which will be held by the acquiring person after the consummation of an acquisition”—including any held before the acquisition—are deemed held “as a result of” the acquisition at issue.

    19. Pursuant to Sections 801.13(a)(2) and 801.10(c)(1) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.13(a)(2) and 801.10(c)(1), the value of voting securities already held is the market price, defined to be the lowest closing price within 45 days prior to the subsequent acquisition.

    20. Section 801.1(i)(1) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.1(i)(1), defines the term “solely for the purpose of investment” as follows:

    Voting securities are held or acquired “solely for the purpose of investment” if the person holding or acquiring such voting securities has no intention of participating in the formulation, determination, or direction of the basic business decisions of the issuer.

    21. Section 7A(g)(2) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(2), provides that if any person fails substantially to comply with the notification requirement under the HSR Act, the district court may grant such equitable relief as the court in its discretion determines necessary or appropriate, upon application of the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General.

    VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

    22. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 21 as if set forth fully herein.

    23. On or about August 8, 2011, Third Point LLC began acquiring voting securities of Yahoo on behalf of the Defendant Funds. In general, the voting securities were allocated to each Defendant Fund, as well as to other investment funds managed by Third Point LLC, in proportion to such fund's total capital. These acquisitions were accomplished by open market purchases through the NASDAQ Stock Market. Defendant Funds continued to acquire voting securities of Yahoo after August 8, 2011. Other than the Defendant Funds, no fund managed by Third Point LLC held Yahoo voting securities in excess of the HSR threshold.

    24. On or about August 10, 2011, Defendant Third Point Offshore's aggregate value of Yahoo voting securities exceeded $66 million.

    25. On or about August 17, 2011, Defendant Third Point Ultra's aggregate value of Yahoo voting securities exceeded $66 million.

    26. On or about August 30, 2011, Defendant Third Point Partners' aggregate value of Yahoo voting securities exceeded $66 million.

    27. Third Point LLC continued to acquire voting securities of Yahoo on behalf of the Defendant Funds through September 8, 2011, when Third Point LLC filed a Schedule 13D with the Securities and Exchange Commission publicly disclosing the Defendant Funds' holdings in Yahoo.

    28. The transactions described in Paragraphs 24 through 27 were subject to the notification and waiting periods of the HSR Act and the HSR Rules. The HSR Act and HSR Rules in effect during the time period pertinent to this proceeding required that each Defendant Fund file a notification and report form with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission and observe a waiting period before acquiring and holding an aggregate total amount of voting securities of Yahoo in excess of $66 million.

    29. The Defendant Funds did not comply with the reporting and waiting period requirements of the HSR Act and HSR Rules in connection with the transactions described in Paragraphs 24 through 27.

    30. Defendants cannot demonstrate that any of the HSR Act's exemptions applied to the transactions described in Paragraphs 24 through 27. In particular, Defendants' intent when making these acquisitions was inconsistent with the exemption for acquisitions made “solely for the purpose of investment.” Defendants' intent to acquire voting securities of Yahoo other than solely for the purpose of investment is evidenced by the following acts, among others, contemporaneous with the acquisitions. Defendants and/or their agents: contacted certain individuals to gauge their interest and willingness to become the CEO of Yahoo or a potential board candidate of Yahoo; took other steps to assemble an alternate slate of board of directors for Yahoo; drafted correspondence to Yahoo to announce that Third Point LLC was prepared to join the board of Yahoo; internally deliberated the possible launch of a proxy battle for directors of Yahoo; and made public statements that they were prepared to propose a slate of directors at Yahoo's next annual meeting.

    31. On or about September 16, 2011, each of the Defendant Funds filed a notification and report form under the HSR Act with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. The waiting period relating to these filings expired on or about October 17, 2011.

    32. Defendant Third Point Offshore was in violation of the HSR Act each day during the period beginning on August 10, 2011, and ending on or about October 17, 2011.

    33. Defendant Third Point Ultra was in violation of the HSR Act each day during the period beginning on August 17, 2011, and ending on or about October 17, 2011.

    34. Defendant Third Point Partners was in violation of the HSR Act each day during the period beginning on August 30, 2011, and ending on or about October 17, 2011.

    35. Section (g)(2) of the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(2), provides that if any person fails substantially to comply with the notification requirement under the HSR Act, the district court may grant such equitable relief as the court in its discretion determines necessary or appropriate.

    REQUESTED RELIEF

    Wherefore, Plaintiff requests:

    a. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Third Point Offshore's acquisition of Yahoo voting securities on August 10, 2011, without having filed a notification and report form and observed a waiting period, violated the HSR Act; and that Defendant Third Point Offshore was in violation of the HSR Act each day from August 8, 2011, through October 17, 2011;

    b. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Third Point Ultra's acquisition of Yahoo voting securities on August 17, 2011, without having filed a notification and report form and observed a waiting period, violated the HSR Act; and that Defendant Third Point Ultra was in violation of the HSR Act each day from August 17, 2011, through October 17, 2011;

    c. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Third Point Partners' acquisition of Yahoo voting securities on August 30, 2011, without having filed a notification and report form and observed a waiting period, violated the HSR Act; and that Defendant Third Point Partners was in violation of the HSR Act each day from August 30, 2011, through October 17, 2011;

    d. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Third Point LLC had the power and authority to prevent the violations by the Defendant Funds, and that relief against Third Point LLC is necessary and appropriate to ensure future compliance with the HSR Act by the Defendant Funds.

    e. That the Court issue an appropriate injunction preventing future violations by the Defendants as provided by the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(2);

    f. That the Court order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and

    g. That the Court award the Plaintiff its costs of this suit.

    Dated: August 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted, FOR THE PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ___/s/___ William J. Baer (D.C. Bar #324723) Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Antitrust Division Washington, DC 20530 ___/s/___ Daniel P. Ducore (D.C. Bar #933721) Elizabeth A. Piotrowski (D.C. Bar #348052) Kenneth A. Libby Jennifer Lee Special Attorneys Federal Trade Commission Washington, DC 20580 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THIRD POINT OFFSHORE FUND, LTD., THIRD POINT ULTRA, LTD., THIRD POINT PARTNERS QUALIFIED L.P., and THIRD POINT, LLC, Defendants.

    CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-01366 JUDGE: Ketanji Brown Jackson FILED: 08/24/2015
    COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT

    The United States, pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement to set forth the information necessary to enable the Court and the public to evaluate the proposed Final Judgment that would terminate this civil antitrust proceeding.

    I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING

    On August 24, 2015, the United States filed a Complaint against Third Point Offshore Fund, Ltd. (“Offshore”), Third Point Ultra, Ltd. (“Ultra”), Third Point Partners Qualified L.P. (“Qualified”) (collectively “the Defendant Funds”), and Third Point LLC (together with the Defendant Funds collectively, “Defendants”) related to the Defendant Funds' acquisition of voting securities of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) in 2011.

    The Complaint alleges that the Defendant Funds violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”). The HSR Act requires certain acquiring and acquired parties to file pre-acquisition Notification and Report Forms with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (collectively, the “federal antitrust agencies” or “agencies”) and to observe a statutorily mandated waiting period before consummating their acquisition.1 The fundamental purpose of the notification and waiting period is to allow the agencies an opportunity to conduct an antitrust review of proposed transactions that meet the HSR Act's jurisdictional thresholds before they are consummated. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant Funds each acquired voting securities of Yahoo in excess of the statutory thresholds without making the required filings with the agencies and without observing the waiting period, and that the Defendant Funds and Yahoo each meet the statutory size of person threshold.

    1 The HSR Act requires that “no person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, any voting securities of any person” exceeding certain thresholds until both have made premerger notification filings and the post-filing waiting period has expired. 15 U.S.C. 18a(a). The post-filing waiting period is either 30 days after filing or, if the relevant federal antitrust agency requests additional information, 30 days after the parties comply with the agency's request. 15 U.S.C. 18a(b). The agencies may grant early termination of the waiting period, 15 U.S.C. 18a(b)(2), and often do so when an acquisition poses no competitive problems.

    The Complaint further alleges that the Defendant Funds could not rely on the HSR Act's exemption for acquisitions made solely for the purpose of investment (“investment-only exemption”) because they could not show they had “no intention of participating in the formulation, determination, or direction of the basic business decisions of the issuer,” as the exemption is defined in the rules promulgated under the HSR Act. See 16 CFR 801.1(i)(1). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants and/or their agents engaged in a number of acts that showed an intent inconsistent with the exemption. The Complaint seeks an adjudication that the Defendant Funds' acquisitions of voting securities of Yahoo violated the HSR Act, and asks the Court to issue an appropriate injunction.

    At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Stipulation and Order and proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to prevent and restrain Defendants' HSR Act violations. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Defendants are prohibited from acquiring voting securities without observing the HSR Act's notification and waiting period requirements in reliance on the investment-only exemption if they have engaged in certain specified acts during the four (4) months prior to an acquisition that is otherwise reportable under the Act, unless they have affirmatively stated that they are not pursuing board or management representation with respect to the issuer of those voting securities.

    The United States and the Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA, unless the United States first withdraws its consent. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this case, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and punish violations thereof. Entry of this judgment would not constitute evidence against, or an admission by, any party with respect to any issue of fact or law involved in the case and is conditioned upon the Court's finding that entry is in the public interest.

    II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS A. The Defendants and the Acquisitions of Yahoo Voting Securities

    Offshore is an offshore fund organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, with offices at c/o Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-9001, Cayman Islands. Offshore invests in securities and other investments on behalf of its investors.

    Ultra is an offshore fund organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, with offices at c/o Walkers Chambers, 171 Main Street, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Ultra invests in securities and other investments on behalf of its investors.

    Partners is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices at 390 Park Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Partners invests in securities and other investments on behalf of its partners.

    Third Point LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 390 Park Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Third Point LLC makes all the investment decisions for each of the Defendant Funds, including decisions to nominate a candidate to the board of directors of a company in which Defendants have invested, or to launch a proxy fight to obtain board representation on behalf of Defendants.

    On August 8, 2011, Third Point LLC began acquiring voting securities of Yahoo on behalf of the Defendant Funds. In general, the voting securities were allocated to each Defendant Fund, as well as to other investment funds managed by Third Point LLC, in proportion to such fund's total capital. Other than the Defendant Funds, no fund managed by Third Point LLC held Yahoo voting securities in excess of the HSR threshold.

    On August 10, 2011, the value of Offshore's holdings of Yahoo voting securities exceeded the HSR Act's $66 million size-of-transaction threshold then in effect. On August 17, 2011, the value of Ultra's holdings of Yahoo voting securities exceeded $66 million. On August 30, 2011, the value of Partners' holdings of Yahoo voting securities exceeded $66 million. Third Point LLC continued to acquire voting securities of Yahoo on behalf of the Defendant Funds through September 8, 2011, when Third Point LLC filed a Schedule 13D with the Securities and Exchange Commission publicly disclosing the Defendant Funds' holdings in Yahoo.

    On September 16, 2011, the Defendant Funds each filed a Notification and Report Form under the HSR Act with the federal antitrust agencies to acquire voting securities of Yahoo. The waiting period on the Notification and Report Forms expired on October 17, 2011.

    B. The Defendant Funds' Unlawful Conduct

    Compliance with the HSR Act is critical to the federal antitrust agencies' ability to investigate large acquisitions before they are consummated, prevent acquisitions determined to be unlawful under Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18), and design effective divestiture relief when appropriate. Before Congress enacted the HSR Act, the federal antitrust agencies often were forced to investigate anticompetitive acquisitions that had already been consummated without public notice. In those situations, the agencies' only recourse was to sue to unwind the parties' merger. The combined entity usually had the incentive to delay litigation, and years often passed before the case was adjudicated and relief was pursued or obtained. During this extended time, consumers were harmed by the reduction in competition between the merging parties and, even after the court's adjudication, effective relief was often impossible to achieve. Congress enacted the HSR Act to address these problems and to strengthen and improve antitrust enforcement by giving the agencies an opportunity to investigate certain large acquisitions before they are consummated.

    As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendant Funds each acquired in excess of $66 million in voting securities of Yahoo without complying with the pre-merger notification and waiting period requirements of the HSR Act. Defendants' failure to comply undermined the statutory scheme and the purpose of the HSR Act by precluding the agencies' timely review of the Defendants' acquisitions.

    The Complaint further alleges that the Defendant Funds could not rely on the HSR Act's investment-only exemption because, at the time of the acquisitions, they were engaging in activities that evidenced an intent inconsistent with the exemption. Namely, the Defendants and/or their agents contacted certain individuals to gauge their interest and willingness to become the CEO of Yahoo or a potential board candidate of Yahoo; took other steps to assemble an alternate slate of board of directors for Yahoo; drafted correspondence to Yahoo to announce that Third Point LLC was prepared to join the board of Yahoo (i.e., propose Third