Federal Register Vol. 80, No.181,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 181 (September 18, 2015)

Page Range56365-56891
FR Document

80_FR_181
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 56532 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Gauguin to Picasso: Masterworks From Switzerland, The Staechelin & Im Obersteg Collections” and “Daubigny, Monet, Van Gogh: Impressions of Landscape” ExhibitionsPDF
80 FR 56498 - Clinton Power Station, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 56365 - Using Behavioral Science Insights To Better Serve the American PeoplePDF
80 FR 56495 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 56450 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 56370 - Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the BorderPDF
80 FR 56381 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snake Creek, Islamorada, FLPDF
80 FR 56386 - Safety Zone; Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Celebration Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OHPDF
80 FR 56384 - Safety Zone; Kaskaskia River MM 28 to 29; New Athens, ILPDF
80 FR 56388 - Safety Zone; 520 Bridge Construction, Lake Washington, Seattle, WAPDF
80 FR 56536 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CHESTER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56538 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SLEIPNIR; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56534 - Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee; Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 56535 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel EPIPHANY; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56501 - Department of Energy; Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 56537 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel OTHILA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56442 - Notice of Availability of Community-Based Restoration Program GuidelinesPDF
80 FR 56538 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BLUE DUET; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56369 - Implementation of the Australia Group (AG) November 2013 Intersessional Decisions; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 56534 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MYSTIQUE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56536 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TELL STAR; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56537 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ANDIAMO; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 56466 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 56479 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; VacanciesPDF
80 FR 56471 - Bethesda Campus Chilled Water System Improvements Record of DecisionPDF
80 FR 56481 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Second Quarter of Calendar Year 2015PDF
80 FR 56490 - Notice of Realty Action; Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification for Lease in Chaffee County, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 56468 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56493 - Alaska Native Claims SelectionPDF
80 FR 56491 - Alaska Native Claims SelectionPDF
80 FR 56477 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in At-Risk Settings (NIAID)PDF
80 FR 56456 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting; October 2015PDF
80 FR 56465 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water ProtectionPDF
80 FR 56395 - Ocean Dumping: Modification of Final Site DesignationPDF
80 FR 56466 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Great Lakes Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 56457 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
80 FR 56531 - South Carolina Disaster #SC-00028PDF
80 FR 56441 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 56507 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56506 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56519 - Order Pursuant to Sections 15F(b)(6) and 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Extending Certain Temporary Exemptions and a Temporary and Limited Exception Related to Security-Based SwapsPDF
80 FR 56489 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; HUD Standard Grant Application Forms: Detailed Budget Form (HUD-424-CB), Budget Worksheet (HUD-424CBW), Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), and the Third-Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal Form (HUD-96011)PDF
80 FR 56467 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56445 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 56446 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 56448 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 56398 - Service ContractingPDF
80 FR 56398 - Contracting by NegotiationPDF
80 FR 56398 - Describing Agency NeedsPDF
80 FR 56401 - Eligibility of Namibia To Export Meat Products to the United StatesPDF
80 FR 56447 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
80 FR 56470 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56494 - Notice of Termination of the Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan for Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New JerseyPDF
80 FR 56444 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56445 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56550 - Publication of Choice Act Section 201 Independent AssessmentsPDF
80 FR 56416 - Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal MinesPDF
80 FR 56439 - Renewal of Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges: Flider Electronics, LLC a/k/a Flider Electronics d/b/a Trident International Corporation d/b/a Trident International d/b/a Trident International Corporation, LLC, 837 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102; Pavel Semenovich Flider a/k/a Pavel Flider, 21 Eye Street, San Rafael, California 94901; and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider a/k/a Gennadiy Flider, 699 36th Avenue #203, San Francisco, California 94121PDF
80 FR 56550 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance CompanyPDF
80 FR 56474 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 56474 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 56476 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 56449 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 56450 - Procurement List; Proposed AdditionsPDF
80 FR 56497 - Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 56399 - Onions Grown in South Texas; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 56467 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 56467 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 56532 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New TaskPDF
80 FR 56502 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 56437 - Information Collection Request; Servicing Minor Program LoansPDF
80 FR 56454 - Staff Notice of Alleged ViolationsPDF
80 FR 56453 - Western Area Power Administration; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 56456 - ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 56453 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement ProjectPDF
80 FR 56454 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Indiana Market Lateral ProjectPDF
80 FR 56451 - Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.; Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 56452 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 56455 - UIF GP, LLC; Notice of Supplement To Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
80 FR 56452 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 56407 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 56515 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of the Ninth Amendment to the National Market System Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.PDF
80 FR 56450 - Hawaii Clean Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 56496 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Information Collections Requests To Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and Contract Works Hours and Safety Standards ActPDF
80 FR 56491 - Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Rasmussen Valley Mine, Caribou County, IdahoPDF
80 FR 56495 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer OutreachPDF
80 FR 56405 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 56413 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 56438 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56437 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56549 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Procedures To Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions ActPDF
80 FR 56539 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 56525 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rules 6.74A and 6.74BPDF
80 FR 56503 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Market MakersPDF
80 FR 56508 - 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 56517 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
80 FR 56530 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
80 FR 56511 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Transaction Fees at Chapter XV, Section 2 Entitled “NASDAQ Options Market-Fees and Rebates”PDF
80 FR 56522 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To List Two Additional Products During Extended Trading HoursPDF
80 FR 56525 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 56390 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) UnitsPDF
80 FR 56469 - Consumer Comments-Public Posting and Availability of Comments Submitted to Food and Drug Administration DocketsPDF
80 FR 56477 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 56475 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 56476 - In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation for High Throughput Prioritization and Decision Making; Notice of Webinars and Public Workshop; Registration InformationPDF
80 FR 56475 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 56422 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Sewage Sludge IncineratorsPDF
80 FR 56418 - Air Plan Approval; TN; Reasonably Available Control Measures and Redesignation for the TN Portion of the Chattanooga 1997 Annual PM2.5PDF
80 FR 56422 - Preserving Vacant Channels in the UHF Television Band for Unlicensed UsePDF
80 FR 56497 - NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; MeetingPDF
80 FR 56432 - Establish a Single Small Business Size Standard for Commercial Fishing BusinessesPDF
80 FR 56393 - Fluensulfone; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 56423 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 25 PetitionsPDF
80 FR 56819 - Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code CasesPDF
80 FR 56479 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 56494 - Revised Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 56763 - Updating Competitive Bidding RulesPDF
80 FR 56865 - Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United StatesPDF
80 FR 56415 - Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United StatesPDF
80 FR 56699 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum ProductionPDF
80 FR 56577 - Release of Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas IndustryPDF
80 FR 56579 - Source Determination for Certain Emission Units in the Oil and Natural Gas SectorPDF
80 FR 56553 - Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian CountryPDF
80 FR 56593 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified SourcesPDF

Issue

80 181 Friday, September 18, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Increased Assessment Rates: Onions Grown in South Texas, 56399-56401 2015-23436 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56437 2015-23404 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56467-56469 2015-23462 2015-23482 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Snake Creek, Islamorada, FL, 56381-56384 2015-23537 Safety Zones: 520 Bridge Construction, Lake Washington, Seattle, WA, 56388-56390 2015-23526 Kaskaskia River MM 28 to 29; New Athens, IL, 56384-56386 2015-23535 Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Celebration Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH, 56386-56388 2015-23536 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 56479 2015-23488 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 2015-23441 56449-56450 2015-23442 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56539-56549 2015-23402 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 56549-56550 2015-23403 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System RULES Contracting by Negotiation; CFR Correction, 56398 2015-23457 Describing Agency Needs; CFR Correction, 56398 2015-23456 Service Contracting; CFR Correction, 56398 2015-23458 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 56450 2015-23547 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Hawaii Clean Energy, 56450-56451 2015-23414
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Designated Facilities and Pollutants, 56390-56393 2015-23390 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production, 56700-56762 2015-21031 Ocean Dumping; Modification of Final Site Designation, 56395-56398 2015-23475 Pesticide Tolerances: Fluensulfone, 56393-56395 2015-23359 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Sewage Sludge Incinerators; Designated Facilities and Pollutants, 56422 2015-23384 Tennessee—Reasonably Available Control Measures and Redesignation for the TN Portion of the Chattanooga 1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 56418-56422 2015-23382 Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources, 56593-56698 2015-21023 Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production, 56554-56576 2015-21025 Source Determination for Certain Emission Units in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, 56579-56592 2015-21026 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Protection, 56465-56466 2015-23476 Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, 56577-56578 2015-21027 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 56466-56467 2015-23490 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee, 56456-56457 2015-23478 Great Lakes Advisory Board; Teleconferences, 56466 2015-23474 Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations, 56457-56465 2015-23473 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Servicing Minor Program Loans, 56437-56438 2015-23430 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 56405-56407 2015-23409 Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 56413-56415 2015-23408 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 56407-56413 2015-23420 NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, 56534 2015-23512 New Tasks: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 56532-56534 2015-23433 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Updating Competitive Bidding Rules, 56764-56817 2015-21950 PROPOSED RULES Preserving Vacant Channels in the UHF Television Band for Unlicensed Use, 56422-56423 2015-23380 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56539-56549 2015-23402 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Alleged Violations: Coaltrain Energy LP, et al., 56454 2015-23429 Combined Filings, 56452-56453 2015-23421 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Proposed Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement Project, 56453-56454 2015-23426 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, Proposed Southern Indiana Market Lateral Projet, 56454-56455 2015-23425 Filings: Western Area Power Administration, 56453 2015-23428 License Transfer Applications: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 56451-56452 2015-23424 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: UIF GP, LLC, 56455-56456 2015-23422 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: ANR Pipeline Co, 56456 2015-23427 Staff Attendances, 56452 2015-23423 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56539-56549 2015-23402 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 56467 2015-23434 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 56467 2015-23435 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co., 56550 2015-23446 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Findings on 25 Petitions, 56423-56432 2015-23315 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Public Posting and Availability of Comments Submitted to Food and Drug Administration Dockets, 56469-56470 2015-23389 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Eligibility of Namibia to Export Meat Products to the United States, 56401-56405 2015-23455 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56438 2015-23405 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56438-56439 2015-23406 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Rasmussen Valley Mine, Caribou County, ID, 56491-56493 2015-23412 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56470-56471 2015-23453
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: HUD Standard Grant Application Forms, etc., 56489-56490 2015-23463 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 56479-56481 2015-23139 Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Second Quarter of Calendar Year 2015, 56481-56489 2015-23486 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Implementation of the Australia Group November 2013 Intersessional Decisions; Correction, 56369-56370 2015-23500 NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Flider Electronics, LLC, et al., 56439-56441 2015-23447 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Dividend Equivalents from Sources within the United States, 56866-56891 2015-21759 PROPOSED RULES Dividend Equivalents from Sources within the United States, 56415-56416 2015-21753 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 56441-56442 2015-23468 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 56495 2015-23586 Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Veterans Employment and Training Service

See

Wage and Hour Division

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection, 56491, 56493 2015-23480 2015-23481 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Rasmussen Valley Mine, Caribou County, ID, 56491-56493 2015-23412 Realty Action: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification for Lease in Chaffee County, CO, 56490-56491 2015-23483 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ANDIAMO, 56537 2015-23494 Vessel BLUE DUET, 56538-56539 2015-23501 Vessel CHESTER, 56536 2015-23514 Vessel EPIPHANY, 56535 2015-23511 Vessel MYSTIQUE, 56534-56535 2015-23499 Vessel OTHILA, 56537-56538 2015-23509 Vessel SLEIPNIR, 56538 2015-23513 Vessel TELL STAR, 56536-56537 2015-23497 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines, 56416-56418 2015-23448 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 56497 2015-23376 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in at-Risk Settings, 56477-56478 2015-23479 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 56475-56476 2015-23387 In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation for High Throughput Prioritization and Decision, 56476-56477 2015-23386 National Institute of Mental Health, 56474-56475 2015-23445 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 56474, 56476 2015-23443 2015-23444 National Institute on Aging, 56477 2015-23388 Office of the Director, 56475 2015-23385 Record of Decision: Bethesda Campus Chilled Water System Improvements, 56471-56474 2015-23487 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Establishing a Single Small Business Size Standard for Commercial Fishing Businesses, 56432-56436 2015-23375 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56444-56446 2015-23450 2015-23451 Community-based Restoration Program Guidelines, 56442-56444 2015-23503 Endangered and Threatened Species: Take of Anadromous Fish, 56447-56448 2015-23454 Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 56446-56447 2015-23460 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 56445 2015-23461 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 56448-56449 2015-23459 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: General Management Plan for Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, NJ; Termination, 56494 2015-23452 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 56497-56498 2015-23437 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Incorporation by Reference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, 56820-56864 2015-23193 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV; Correction, 56501-56502 2015-23510 License Amendment Applications: Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, 56498-56501 2015-23632 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina, 56494-56495 2015-22988 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 56502-56503 2015-23431 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Government Agencies and Employees: Behavioral Science Insights; Use To Improve Government Programs and Services (EO 13707), 56365-56367 2015-23630 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 56506-56508 2015-23465 2015-23466 2015-23467 Extension of Certain Temporary Exemptions and Temporary and Limited Exceptions Related to Security-Based Swaps, 56519-56522 2015-23464 Joint Industry Plans: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al., 56515-56517 2015-23415 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 56508-56511 2015-23399 BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 56503-56506 2015-23400 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 56522-56530 2015-23394 2015-23395 2015-23401 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 56517-56519, 56530-56531 2015-23397 2015-23398 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 56511-56515 2015-23396 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: South Carolina, 56531-56532 2015-23470 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Gauguin to Picasso--Masterworks from Switzerland, The Staechelin and Im Obersteg Collections and Daubigny, Monet, Van Gogh--Impressions of Landscape, 56532 2015-23634 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the Border, 56370-56381 2015-23543
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the Border, 56370-56381 2015-23543 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Choice Act Independent Assessments, 56550-56551 2015-23449 Veterans Employment Veterans Employment and Training Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach, 56495-56496 2015-23411 Wage Wage and Hour Division NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans, etc., 56496-56497 2015-23413 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 2015-21023 56554-56698 2015-21025 2015-21026 2015-21027 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 56700-56762 2015-21031 Part IV Federal Communications Commission, 56764-56817 2015-21950 Part V Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 56820-56864 2015-23193 Part VI Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 56866-56891 2015-21759 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.

80 181 Friday, September 18, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 774 [Docket No. 141229999-5828-02] RIN 0694-AG45 Implementation of the Australia Group (AG) November 2013 Intersessional Decisions; Correction AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes this final rule to correct typographical errors contained in a final rule published on June 16, 2015 (80 FR 34266), which amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the November 2013 Australia Group (AG) intersessional implementation meeting and later adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure. The typographical errors appear in a Note to ECCN 1C351.a, which includes viruses identified on the AG “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control.” This rule also identifies another typographical error in the June 16, 2015, final rule involving the “Reason for Control” paragraph for ECCN 1E351. This error does not require a correction at this time, but is being identified to provide clarification to the public.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Duncan, Ph.D., Director, Chemical and Biological Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-3343, Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 16, 2015, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published the final rule “Implementation of the Australia Group (AG) November 2013 Intersessional Decisions” (80 FR 34266), which amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to reflect the merger of two AG common control lists by removing ECCN 1C352 (animal pathogens) from the CCL and adding the pathogens previously controlled under ECCN 1C352 to ECCN 1C351 (human and zoonotic pathogens and “toxins”). The latter ECCN was renamed to indicate that it controls both human and animal pathogens and “toxins.” That final rule also renumbered the items in ECCN 1C351.a, and certain items in ECCN 1C351.c to accommodate the addition to ECCN 1C351 of those items that had been controlled under ECCN 1C352 prior to the publication of that rule.

As amended by the June 16, 2015, final rule, the Note to ECCN 1C351.a.4 (which controls avian influenza viruses identified as having high pathogenicity) incorrectly referenced ECCN 1C352.a.4, instead of ECCN 1C351.a.4. This final rule corrects the references contained in that Note. Specifically, the Note to ECCN 1C351.a.4 is corrected to read as follows: “Avian influenza (AI) viruses of the H5 or H7 subtype that do not have either of the characteristics described in 1C351.a.4 (specifically, 1C351.a.4.a or a.4.b) should be sequenced to determine whether multiple basic amino acids are present at the cleavage site of the haemagglutinin molecule (HA0). If the amino acid motif is similar to that observed for other HPAI isolates, then the isolate being tested should be considered as HPAI and the virus is controlled under 1C351.a.4.” The corrections to this Note do not affect the scope of the controls described in ECCN 1C351.a.4.

In addition, the text for ECCN 1E351, as published in the June 16, 2015, final rule incorrectly identified the applicable controls for this ECCN under the “Reason for Control” paragraph in the License Requirements section. Specifically, the “Reason for Control” paragraph mistakenly identified the applicable controls for ECCN 1E351 as “NS, MT, NP, CB, RS, AT,” instead of “CB, AT.” It is not necessary, however, to amend ECCN 1E351 to correct this error, because the amendatory instructions for ECCN 1E351 in the June 16, 2015, final rule did not include a specific instruction to amend the “Reason for Control” paragraph for this ECCN. Consequently, the “Reason for Control” paragraph in ECCN 1E351 was not revised by the June 16, 2015, final rule. The paragraph, as published in the CCL, continues to correctly identify the applicable controls for this ECCN as “CB, AT.” BIS identifies this error to inform the public of the inconsistency between the contents of the June 16, 2015, final rule and the CCL, and to provide clarification regarding the applicable controls for ECCN 1E351.

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48,233 (Aug. 11, 2015)), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230.

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

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are waived for good cause because they are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The changes contained in this rule are non-substantive technical corrections of a previously published rule that has already been exempted from notice and comment. This rule is necessary to ensure clarity in the regulations and accuracy regarding the scope of controls in the Note to ECCN 1C351.a.4. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment, it would result in further confusion caused by the incorrect cross-references in that ECCN. These changes are also essential to ensuring the accurate and complete implementation of the June 16, 2015, final rule.

The provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring a 30-day delay in effectiveness is also waived for good cause. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). The corrections contained in this final rule are non-substantive technical corrections of a previously published rule that has already been exempted from notice and comment. If this rule were delayed to allow for a 30-day delay in effectiveness, it would result in further confusion caused by the incorrect cross-references in the aforementioned ECCN. These changes are also essential to ensuring the accurate and complete implementation of the June 16, 2015, final rule.

Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 774

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 774—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 774 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015)).

2. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1— Special Materials and Related Equipment, Chemicals, “Microorganisms” and “Toxins,” ECCN 1C351 is amended under the “Items” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section by revising the Note immediately following paragraph a.4.b to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—the Commerce Control List 1C351 Human and animal pathogens and “toxins”, as follows (see List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled Items:

a. * * *

a.4. * * *

a.4.b. * * *

Note:

Avian influenza (AI) viruses of the H5 or H7 subtype that do not have either of the characteristics described in 1C351.a.4 (specifically, 1C351.a.4.a or a.4.b) should be sequenced to determine whether multiple basic amino acids are present at the cleavage site of the haemagglutinin molecule (HA0). If the amino acid motif is similar to that observed for other HPAI isolates, then the isolate being tested should be considered as HPAI and the virus is controlled under 1C351.a.4.

Dated: September 10, 2015. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2015-23500 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 133 and 151 [Docket No. USCBP-2012-0011; CBP Dec. 15-12] RIN 1515-AD87 Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the Border AGENCIES:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document adopts as a final rule, with changes, interim amendments to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations pertaining to importations of merchandise bearing suspected counterfeit trademarks or trade names that are recorded with CBP. Specifically, the amendments allow CBP, for the purpose of obtaining assistance in determining whether merchandise bears a counterfeit mark, to disclose to a trademark or other mark owner information appearing on merchandise or its retail packaging that may otherwise be protected by the Trade Secrets Act. This final rule also amends the CBP regulations to further enhance information-sharing procedures by requiring CBP to release to the importer an unredacted sample or image of the suspect merchandise or its retail packaging any time after presentation of the suspect goods for examination. This change is to reflect that an importer may not have complete information about the marks appearing on imported goods, and release of such unredacted information will assist the importer in providing CBP with a meaningful response to a detention notice. The amendments in this final rule also require CBP to release limited importation information to the mark owner no later than the time of issuance of the detention notice to the importer, rather than within 30 business days from the date of detention. Finally, these amendments require CBP to notify the mark owner that use of any information otherwise protected by the Trade Secrets Act that is disclosed by CBP to the mark owner is for the limited purpose of assisting CBP.

DATES:

Effective on October 19, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Goli Gharib, Intellectual Property Rights Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0216.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 24, 2012, CBP published CBP Dec. 12-10 in the Federal Register (77 FR 24375), setting forth interim amendments to the CBP regulations that pertain to importations of merchandise bearing suspected counterfeit trademarks or trade names that are recorded with CBP. The interim regulation, which went into effect upon publication, made several changes to subpart C of part 133 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 133) regarding the detention of suspect merchandise and the disclosure of information to mark owners during detention of goods bearing potentially counterfeit marks and after seizure of goods bearing counterfeit marks. These changes included a clarifying revision of the definition of “counterfeit trademark” and the addition of a 30-day detention period relative to goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks.

CBP Dec. 12-10 sets forth a detailed discussion of the statutory scheme pertaining to enforcement of the intellectual property laws and CBP's derived authority to promulgate the interim amendments whereby CBP officers may disclose certain information that might comprise otherwise confidential commercial or financial information in order to assist CBP in identifying merchandise bearing counterfeit marks at the time of detention. See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) (Public Law 112-81, 10 U.S.C. 2302); Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905); Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.); Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1124, 1125, 1127); Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1526(e) and 1595a(c)). Interested parties may refer to CBP Dec. 12-10 for that background information.

Although the interim regulatory amendments were promulgated without prior public notice and comment procedures and took effect on April 24, 2012, CBP Dec. 12-10 provided for the submission of public comments which would be considered before adoption of the interim regulations as a final rule.

Discussion of Comments

Twenty commenters responded to the interim rule's solicitation of public comment. Each submission consisted of multiple comments and several were submitted by or on behalf of associations. A majority of commenters expressed support for the interim rule's primary purpose of providing a procedure for the disclosure of information by CBP to mark owners for the purpose of determining whether imported goods bear counterfeit marks. Many of these commenters expressed the view that the interim rule does not go far enough to support CBP's enforcement efforts and made recommendations for improving the regulation.

A minority of commenters opposed the rule. Some of these commenters expressed concern that the interim regulation may have unintended consequences on the flow of legitimate trade, such as by enabling mark owners to prevent competing legitimate goods from entering commerce, and may create administrative burdens for the agency. The comments, and CBP's analyses thereof, are set forth below.

A. Terminology

For purposes of the comment discussion, the following terms are defined as set forth below:

• “Section (b)(1) information” refers to the specified information CBP is authorized to release under § 133.21(b)(1) of the interim regulation: Information appearing on suspect goods or their retail packaging (including labels) and unredacted samples or images (photographs, etc.) of the suspect goods or their retail packaging. “Section (b)(1) information,” in whatever form disclosed, may include manufacturer, shipper, exporter, or importer name and address when it appears on merchandise or its retail packaging, or serial numbers, dates of manufacture, lot codes, batch numbers, universal product codes, or other identifying marks, appearing on merchandise or its retail packaging in alphanumeric or other formats.

• The term “unredacted sample” refers to a sample (including its packaging) in its original condition as presented to CBP for examination.

• The term “limited importation information” refers to the basic information CBP releases under § 133.21(b)(2) of the interim regulation (redesignated as § 133.21(b)(4) in this final rule). Limited importation information consists of: Date of importation, port of entry, and description, quantity, and country of origin of the goods.

• The term “redacted sample” is used to describe samples of goods displaying information all of which or some of which has been removed, obscured, or obliterated. Such information may include the names and addresses of manufacturers, shippers, exporters, or importers that appear on merchandise or its retail packaging, or serial numbers, dates of manufacture, lot codes, batch numbers, universal product codes, or other identifying marks that appear on merchandise or its retail packaging in alphanumeric or other formats. Redacted samples may be photographed or otherwise reproduced for release to mark owners.

• “Comprehensive importation information,” released by CBP under § 133.21(d) of the interim regulation (redesignated as § 133.21(e) in this final rule), includes limited importation information plus the following additional information: Name and address of the manufacturer, exporter, and importer.

• The terms “goods” and “merchandise” are used interchangeably.

B. Comments Concerning Legal Issues 1. Comments Concerning Applicability of the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905)

Comment: One commenter contended that the Trade Secrets Act only prohibits unauthorized disclosures of personally identifiable information by a government official or employee who received the information in the course of his employment.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees. The Trade Secrets Act applies to any information that “. . . concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; . . . .” (18 U.S.C. 1905).

Comment: Several commenters questioned CBP's interpretation of the Trade Secrets Act as set forth in the interim rule, which is that information appearing on imported articles and their retail packaging is information potentially covered by the Trade Secrets Act's protection against disclosure.

CBP Response: CBP's view is that while the Trade Secrets Act protects from disclosure information that identifies persons, or which may lead to the identification of persons, the Act is not limited to such information. The Act also covers a comprehensive array of business, commercial, and financial information.

Comment: Several commenters were of the view that CBP had changed its practice in 2008 to reflect that information appearing on imported articles and their retail packaging is information potentially covered by the Trade Secrets Act's protection against disclosure, and that subsequently CBP required that samples provided to mark owners be redacted.

CBP Response: The agency has consistently interpreted the Trade Secrets Act as prohibiting its employees from the unauthorized disclosure of protected information received in the course of their employment. From calendar year 2000 to publication of the interim rule on April 24, 2012, CBP's written policy was to provide, prior to seizure of goods bearing counterfeit marks, only limited importation information and/or redacted samples to mark owners (Customs Directive 2310-008A, April 7, 2000).

Comment: Several commenters stated that tracking information and other product coding are generally visible to the public and that any proprietary interest in this information belongs to the shipper and/or mark owner, not to the importer. These commenters contended that the Trade Secrets Act does not prohibit disclosure of this information to the mark owner.

CBP Response: As explained in the interim rule, markings, alphanumeric symbols, and other coding appearing on products or their retail packaging may reveal information regarding an importer's supply chain. This information is of the kind normally subject to Trade Secrets Act protection regardless of who may have applied the markings/symbols/coding to the products or packaging. The Trade Secrets Act permits those covered by the Act to disclose protected information when the disclosure is otherwise “authorized by law,” which includes properly promulgated substantive agency regulations authorizing disclosure based on a valid statutory interpretation. See Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 294-316 (1979). Therefore, the “authorized by law” exception of the Trade Secrets Act allows CBP to disclose this protected information to the mark owner for the limited purpose of obtaining the mark owner's assistance in determining whether goods bear a counterfeit mark.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the interim regulation fails to safeguard the commercial and supply chain information that it purports to protect, as that information will inevitably become available to the public when the imported goods reach the market.

CBP Response: The Trade Secrets Act prohibits government officials from disclosing protected information received during the course of their employment or official duties, unless disclosure is exempted from the prohibition, regardless of whether the owner of that information may eventually disclose it to the public. Importers of merchandise detained under the provisions of the interim regulation may ultimately choose not to put the goods on the market or may otherwise dispose of the goods in a manner in which the aforementioned information appearing on the goods and/or packaging would never be disclosed to the public. Importers who choose to disclose such information are not subject to the Trade Secrets Act as they are not government employees who have received information pursuant to their employment. CBP's release of this information under the interim regulation's procedure is allowed under the “authorized by law” exception to the Trade Secrets Act, discussed above.

2. Comments Concerning the NDAA

Comment: One commenter stated that the NDAA is the sole authority for promulgating the interim regulation and requested that CBP clarify the legal basis for the regulation.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's premise. As explained in the interim rule, the NDAA is not the sole source of authority for the interim regulation's information disclosure procedure. In fact, several statutes, including 15 U.S.C. 1124, 1125, and 1127 and 19 U.S.C. 1526(e) authorize CBP to disclose to mark owners, for purposes of obtaining the mark owners' assistance in making infringement determinations, information that CBP may disclose under the interim regulation.

Comment: Several commenters contended that the NDAA only applies to products procured by the military and/or matters involving national defense concerns.

CBP Response: Several statutes authorize CBP to disclose to the mark owner the information set forth in the interim regulation, none of which, including the NDAA, is limited to military procurements and/or importations raising national defense concerns. The NDAA language is unambiguous and applies to any product CBP suspects of “being imported in violation of section 42 of the Lanham Act.” Therefore, CBP declines to limit the interim regulation's applicability as suggested by the commenters.

3. Comments Raising Other Legal Concerns

Comment: One commenter recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to clarify that goods that are properly trademarked and that only use an additional protected trademark in a description of the product are not covered within the scope of this regulation.

CBP Response: In many cases, using a trademark in the way described by the commenter is permissible as a “fair use” of the trademark. “Fair use” is a well-established doctrine in trademark law that is recognized and honored by the courts. See section 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1115(b)(4), which provides for a “fair use” defense when “the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, . . . or [use of] a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party.” CBP honors the “fair use” doctrine, but does not believe it is necessary to include it in this CBP regulation.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to modify its definition of “counterfeit” based on their concerns that CBP officers could detain goods that are genuine, albeit repaired or refurbished goods, or goods bearing genuine marks that are unrestricted parallel imports.

CBP Response: The interim regulation employs the definition of “counterfeit” provided by the Lanham Act at 15 U.S.C. 1127.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the interim regulation should apply to other forms of intellectual property, such as suspected piratical or copyright infringing goods, and merchandise suspected of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 1201.

CBP Response: As the above comment concerns amendments to regulations concerning forms of intellectual property other than counterfeit marks, it falls outside the scope of this final rulemaking. CBP recognizes the concern that there be similar disclosure provisions relating to suspected piratical or copyright infringing goods and merchandise suspected of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 1201, and plans to address the issue through a separate proposed rulemaking.

C. Comments Concerning Action by Mark Owners

Comment: Several commenters noted that the interim regulation provides an opportunity for mark owners to potentially abuse the section (b)(1) information provided to them by CBP, and to disrupt or eliminate lawful parallel market competition. Several commenters recommended that CBP restrict mark owners' use of section (b)(1) information by placing conditions on the manner by which they may receive and use the information.

CBP Response: The interim regulation allows CBP to release section (b)(1) information to a mark owner after an importer has been notified and has had the opportunity to establish that the suspect goods bear genuine marks. This regulation is not intended to impede the legal importation of parallel (gray market) goods. However, to address the concern of these commenters, and the concern of those suggesting that conditions and limitations be placed on mark owners receiving section (b)(1) information, CBP is amending the interim regulation at 19 CFR 133.21(c) to include in the disclosure to the mark owner a statement that some or all of the information being disclosed may be information protected from disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act. The regulation provides that CBP is only disclosing the information to the owner of the mark for the purpose of assisting CBP in determining whether the merchandise bears a counterfeit mark. CBP will take into account, in deciding whether to make future disclosures to a mark owner, instances in which the mark owner has used the disclosed information for another purpose (i.e., other than for assisting CPB in making the infringement determination).

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to require mark owners receiving section (b)(1) information from CBP to provide certifications, under penalty of perjury, when reporting to CBP that goods are counterfeit and contain spurious versions of the specific marks recorded with CBP. One commenter contended that a certification would provide an assurance of veracity in a mark owner's response to CBP that the goods bear counterfeit marks.

CBP Response: A certification step would add administrative complexity and impede CBP's ability to determine a suspect good's admissibility as quickly as possible. The responsibility for determining whether the goods bear counterfeit marks rests with CBP which routinely determines the admissibility of goods under numerous provisions of customs and other laws. In doing so, CBP considers and determines the veracity of information and the authenticity of documents presented by importers, mark owners, and others who participate in various procedures administered under the customs laws and regulations. CBP will not seize merchandise based solely on information provided by the mark owner when CBP deems such information to be insufficient or inconsistent with the facts of the case.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that mark owners will delay and/or fail to be responsive to CBP's inquiries regarding authenticity of marks appearing on suspect goods, thereby prejudicing the right of importers to an orderly and reasonably expeditious process.

CBP Response: CBP believes the commenter's concern will be the exception, not the rule. The interim regulation's detention period extends for 30 days from the date goods are presented for examination, which CBP deems a reasonable time frame considering the potential urgency of the matter. Most cases will be resolved within the 30-day period. If detained articles are not released within the detention period, the articles are deemed excluded in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1499(c)(5) for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4), which pertains to an importer's right to protest CBP's decisions. Therefore, delay by the mark owner, whatever the reason, will not deprive the importer of recourse to gain release of its merchandise where the facts warrant such release.

D. Comments Pertaining to the Interim Regulation's Procedure 1. Comments Concerning the Procedure Generally

Comment: Some commenters noted that there could be a potential disruption to the flow of legitimate trade by the interim regulation's required procedures.

CBP Response: CBP acknowledges that some goods initially suspected of bearing counterfeit marks will ultimately be determined to be genuine or otherwise non-violative and that the release of these genuine goods will be delayed to some extent. However, the interim regulation's procedure is structured to resolve these issues in a reasonably expedited manner, while giving appropriate notices to impacted parties. Suspect goods found to be genuine will be released expeditiously.

Comment: One commenter, an importer, stated that the interim regulation's procedure prevents CBP from seeking assistance in determining whether the suspect goods bear counterfeit marks until CBP issues a notice of detention to the importer. The commenter contended that this procedure impedes CBP's enforcement effort.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the process. In order to seek assistance from a mark owner CBP may, at its discretion at any time after merchandise is presented for examination, disclose limited importation information and redacted samples (or photographs/images) to a mark owner.

Comment: The same commenter stated that the interim regulation's procedure prevents CBP from seeking assistance from the mark owner within the seven business day period after issuance of the detention notice.

CBP Response: Again, CBP disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the process. As stated above, CBP may, at its discretion at any time after merchandise is presented for examination, disclose limited importation information and redacted samples (or photographs/images) to a mark owner.

Comment: One commenter recommended that CBP amend the regulation to require that a mark owner post a bond in order to receive a sample only when the value of the sample released to the mark owner is $500 or more.

CBP Response: CBP believes that the bonding requirements set forth in this final rule are appropriate to indemnify the importer against any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing of a sample to the mark owner for purposes of assisting the government in making an infringement determination.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP provide in the regulation an opportunity for the importer to have a sample of the suspect goods tested by a qualified laboratory rather than providing a sample to the mark owner.

CBP Response: CBP recognizes that laboratory analysis may, in certain instances, be a valuable tool in determining whether goods bear genuine marks. CBP will consider any information, including laboratory reports, provided by an importer to support the admissibility of goods detained under the interim regulation. While information from a laboratory may lead CBP to decide it is not necessary to provide a sample to a mark owner, that is not necessarily the case.

Comment: One commenter, an association representing mark owners, stated that its members strongly oppose giving importers the principal role in authenticating detained products and requests that CBP provide right holders with unredacted samples and a direct voice in determining authenticity.

CBP Response: This final rule does not give importers the principal role in authenticating suspected counterfeit marks. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1499, CBP has the ultimate responsibility for determining whether a suspected mark is counterfeit. Moreover, this final rule provides the right holders with unredacted samples and photographs and an opportunity to provide CBP with input regarding whether the goods bear a counterfeit mark whenever CBP has an unresolved suspicion.

Comment: Some commenters stated that allowing the importer an opportunity to establish that its imported goods are genuine invites fraud and questioned whether CBP would be able to determine the authenticity of documents and information provided by an importer.

CBP Response: There is always a risk that CBP receives incorrect information, whether from an importer or another interested party. CBP, however, has extensive experience in determining the admissibility of goods under the numerous provisions of the customs laws and other laws it enforces and is well aware of the potential for fraud. CBP has developed expertise in determining the admissibility of goods presented for entry and routinely considers the veracity and authenticity of information and documents that importers (and others) present to CBP.

Comment: One commenter recommended that CBP include a mechanism under the interim regulation's procedure by which mark owners may object to a determination by CBP that a suspected counterfeit mark is not counterfeit, after the mark owner receives either limited importation information or section (b)(1) information from CBP.

CBP Response: As stated in CBP Dec. 12-10 and noted above, the objective of this rulemaking is to facilitate CBP's solicitation of information from both mark owners and importers to better enable CBP to determine a good's admissibility while safeguarding, to the greatest extent possible, information that is protected by the Trade Secrets Act. The mark owner receives more than limited importation information in that the right holder is provided with an unredacted sample or digital images containing information appearing on the suspect article. The disclosure of this information allows the right holder to provide CBP with the information necessary for making a determination relative to the suspect mark and for determining whether the article bears a counterfeit mark.

Comment: One commenter noted with disapproval that the interim regulation provides for a 30-day window from the date of importation for CBP to make a determination of “reasonable suspicion” and requires CBP to issue a notice of detention to the importer within five business days of that determination.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's reading of the regulation. Under 19 U.S.C. 1499, CBP must decide whether to release or detain merchandise within five business days following the date on which merchandise is presented for examination. Therefore, a five business day window exists within which CBP must make a reasonable suspicion determination, not a 30-day window. CBP is also required to issue a notice of detention to the importer no later than five business days after a decision to detain the merchandise is made. Therefore, the importer will learn of the detention within ten business days of the merchandise being presented for examination.

Comment: Several commenters stated that CBP should be required to issue uniform notices of detention that specify the reason(s) for detention.

CBP Response: CBP agrees as this requirement is mandated by 19 U.S.C. 1499(c)(2)(B).

Comment: One commenter, citing language from the interim rule's preamble, recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to explicitly state that goods will be detained only when CBP “reasonably suspects” that they bear counterfeit marks.

CBP Response: CBP believes that it is unnecessary to codify in the regulations factors, elements, and/or circumstances it must consider, on a case-by-case basis, in determining whether goods are subject to detention for a determination of violation of the intellectual property laws.

Comment: A commenter recommended that CBP define the “good cause” an importer must show under the interim regulation to justify an importer's request for a 30-day extension of the detention period.

CBP Response: CBP no longer believes that such a 30-day extension is warranted and has eliminated it in this final rule. In the past, extensions were granted to provide time to determine admissibility. CBP is confident that with the assistance and input of the right holder, admissibility determinations can be made within the 30-day period.

Comment: One commenter stated that the interim regulation simply codifies in the regulations what, prior to the promulgation of the interim rule, had been the regulatory status quo inasmuch as mark owners may obtain unredacted samples only after CBP determines that the subject goods bear counterfeit marks and seizes them or formulates the intention to seize them.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's reading of the interim regulation. CBP may, when necessary to determine whether suspect goods bear counterfeit marks, disclose unredacted samples to the owner of the mark in accordance with the interim regulation's notice (to the importer) provisions. This disclosure takes place after detention but before either seizure or the formulation of an intent to seize.

Comment: One commenter objected to the interim regulation as not providing protection to importers against disclosure to mark owners of information protected by the Trade Secrets Act with respect to marks that are not recorded with CBP.

CBP Response: The interim regulation does, in fact, require that a mark be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and recorded with CBP as a prerequisite to the agency detaining goods it suspects bear a counterfeit version of the mark and disclosing information (or samples or photographs/images) to the mark owner under § 133.21(b) of the interim regulation. CBP believes that this long-standing requirement is warranted and will continue to impose it. Without it, CBP would lack information needed to enforce the prohibition against counterfeit marks, and the process would become more complex and significantly less workable.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the interim regulation does not provide an objective standard for establishing the genuine nature of marks appearing on imported goods. These commenters recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to include examples of the kind of information it will accept as tending to prove that marks are genuine.

CBP Response: CBP believes that it is unnecessary to amend the regulation, as CBP will consider any document or information that is relevant to the question of the authenticity of the mark. Inevitably, some documents or information submitted to CBP by an importer or a mark owner will be less persuasive or probative. These decisions are case-specific and depend on the circumstances involved. In this context, CBP finds little benefit to limiting the kinds of information it will consider.

2. Comments Concerning the Release of Information

Comment: One commenter recommended that prior to CBP's disclosure of section (b)(1) information to the mark owner, the agency should provide the information to the importer for its consideration of the accuracy and veracity of that information. Several commenters recommended that CBP allow importers to obtain samples of suspect goods to assist them in responding to CBP's request for information regarding the goods. Some of these latter commenters also recommended that importers be permitted to receive samples of seized goods to enable them to respond to seizure and/or penalty notices.

CBP Response: Inasmuch as an importer may not have complete information about the marks appearing on imported goods and/or their retail packaging, CBP finds merit in releasing this information to importers and is amending the interim regulation (see new § 133.21(d)) to provide release of an unredacted sample/packaging/image to the importer any time after presentation of the goods for examination. CBP believes that releasing this information to importers will assist them in providing CBP with a meaningful response before or within the seven business day response period. Under this amended provision, if an importer does not identify a need for a sample until after CBP seizes goods as bearing counterfeit marks the importer may request a sample at that time.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that the interim regulation's procedure for issuing a notice of detention to the importer be expanded to provide, simultaneously rather than within 30 business days of detention, the notice of the detention and limited importation information to the mark owner. This would eliminate unnecessary delay.

CBP Response: CBP finds merit in this recommendation and is amending § 133.21(b) of the interim regulation accordingly. The amended provision will no longer provide that CBP has 30 business days from the date of detention to release limited importation information to the mark owner; if available, such information will be released upon issuance of the detention notice to the importer (or as soon as possible thereafter if not immediately available). This simultaneous notice and release of limited importation information provision will apply in those instances where CBP has not already released limited importation information to the mark owner in accordance with its discretionary release authority under the same section of the interim regulation.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to allow disclosure to another person in place of the mark owner, where there is an arrangement between the other person and the mark owner, such as an assignment, a license, or other agreement. Such other persons may be in a better position to assist CBP in identifying goods bearing counterfeit marks.

CBP Response: CBP discloses such information to the person designated by the mark owner during the recordation process as the contact for enforcement of the mark (see §§ 133.1 through 133.7 of this part). However, due to the administrative difficulty in determining which additional persons may be entitled to receive such information, CBP is not amending the regulations in this regard.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP limit the circumstances in which unredacted samples are released to mark owners by first releasing a redacted sample to the mark owner. An unredacted sample can then be released when the redacted sample proves insufficient for the mark owner to assist CBP in determining whether the goods bear a counterfeit mark.

CBP Response: CBP believes that the interim regulation adequately safeguards importers' interests and that it would be counter-productive and unduly burdensome administratively to impose additional procedural steps before releasing an unredacted sample to the mark owner. The result would be more instances where resolution of the matter would require all or nearly all of the 30-day detention period, which is contrary to CBP's goal to quickly resolve issues of admissibility so as to either enable lawful trade or to prevent violative goods from entering the commerce of the United States.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP make the interim regulation's disclosure provision mandatory rather than permissive, requiring CBP, in every case, to disclose section (b)(1) information, including unredacted samples.

CBP Response: The interim regulation permits CBP to disclose to mark owners, prior to seizure, section (b)(1) information (including an unredacted sample) when CBP finds that obtaining a mark owner's assistance regarding the authenticity of a mark is warranted, subject to the notice and seven business day response period set forth in § 133.21(b)(2)(i). See § 133.21(c). CBP will weigh the facts and circumstances before releasing section (b)(1) information (prior to seizure). CBP therefore does not agree with the commenters' recommendation to require the pre-seizure release of section (b)(1) information to the mark owner in every case. CBP believes that the interim regulation's procedure protects importers' interests in the confidentiality of their commercial and supply chain information while, at the same time, facilitating CBP's trademark enforcement at the border.

Comment: One commenter recommended that CBP clarify that release of information is only authorized after detention, rather than at any time after importation.

CBP Response: Although this comment is accurate regarding release of section (b)(1) information to the mark owner under the interim regulation, this final rule amends § 133.21(b)(4), as explained above, to reflect that CBP may release limited importation information to the mark owner prior to issuance of a notice of detention to the importer and will release such information to the mark owner upon issuance of the notice of detention or as soon as possible after its issuance. This latter change removes the 30-business day window specified in the interim regulation and mandates that CBP will release this information, when available, contemporaneously with issuance of the detention notice to the importer.

Comment: Some commenters recommended that the interim regulation be amended to permit CBP to disclose unredacted samples to the owner of the mark at any time after goods are presented for entry, without the seven business day response period. Some commenters recommended that this response period be eliminated, observing that applicable law does not require a role for the importer in the authentication process.

CBP Response: CBP believes that the regulation strikes the appropriate balance between protecting importers' commercial information and allowing mark owners to assist CBP in enforcing prohibitions against counterfeit goods. Section 1499(a)(5) within 19 U.S.C. specifies the manner in which an importer may provide information to CBP when information is required for the release of goods. Accordingly, importers have a statutorily prescribed role in establishing the admissibility of their goods. At any time after goods are presented for examination, CBP may solicit and receive information from the importer that may enable CBP to expeditiously release the goods. In cases where information is not provided within five days or the information received is insufficient to enable CBP to release the goods, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1499, CBP may detain the goods to enable CBP to determine their admissibility. Should CBP require assistance from a mark owner to determine admissibility of the goods, it may seek assistance at various stages of the detention and may disclose section (b)(1) information, if necessary, after the seven business day response period. Under 19 U.S.C. 1499, if CBP does not make a final determination regarding the admissibility of the goods within 30 days of presentation of the merchandise for examination, its failure to make such a determination is treated as a decision to exclude the merchandise for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4). CBP believes that the above process allows the mark owner adequate time to provide information to CBP when CBP requests such information while protecting importers' commercial information.

Comment: One commenter suggested that CBP amend the interim regulation to require the importer to provide to the mark owner any information it submits to CBP within the seven business day response period. Another commenter suggested that CBP provide to the mark owner a non-proprietary version of the information the importer provided to CBP.

CBP Response: It is CBP's role to determine whether, in light of the relevant laws and regulations, goods that are presented for examination are admissible. The interim regulation simply facilitates CBP's solicitation of information from both mark owners and importers to better enable CBP to determine a good's admissibility while safeguarding as much as possible information that is protected by the Trade Secrets Act.

3. Other Comments Concerning the Seven Business Day Response Period

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP exempt certain industries from the interim regulation's seven business day response period, contending that some industries have special needs requiring information sharing with the mark owner, without delay, in every case.

CBP Response: CBP believes that the interim regulation's procedure will operate effectively across all industries and sectors. Should CBP recognize a need to address a specific industry's circumstances in the future, CBP will consider amending the regulation at that time.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the interim regulation's seven business day response period will impair a mark owner's ability to assist CBP in its efforts to curtail importation of restricted parallel imports or to assist CBP in identifying counterfeit goods that are commingled with unrestricted gray market goods.

CBP Response: The interim regulation did not change the way CBP enforces restrictions on gray market goods. The seven business day response period neither impairs the mark owner's ability to make information available to CBP nor increases the risk of counterfeit goods being admitted. Unless CBP determined the goods are admissible, they are deemed excluded by operation of law. CBP is aware of the potential for these types of shipments and has developed expertise in identifying such activity.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the interim regulation's seven business day response period makes the process for authenticating marks unduly burdensome and that officers charged with enforcing the intellectual property laws may therefore be deterred from taking action.

CBP Response: CBP believes that the interim regulation's procedure will assist CBP officers in making determinations regarding counterfeit marks and is similar to various other provisions in the CBP regulations that require CBP to issue notice to an importer or other party of actions it is undertaking and/or receive information from an importer or other party before taking action. CBP is also confident that its officers will discharge their sworn duties efficiently, responsibly, and professionally at all times.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the interim regulation's seven business day response period will result in the delayed release of legitimate goods. Several other commenters specified that the seven business day response period is too long and may result in the mark owner receiving information to determine authenticity of the mark(s) with as little as 11 days left in the 30-day detention period. These commenters contended that this is not enough time for mark owners to provide meaningful information and is prejudicial to mark owners' interests.

CBP Response: CBP believes that, in the interest of due process, the seven business day response period is appropriate and that the regulation provides adequate time for both importers and mark owners to respond and does not prejudice their interests. CBP further notes that if CBP fails to make a determination within the 30-day detention period the merchandise is excluded by operation of law.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the interim regulation's seven business day response period is too short, inasmuch as it may not provide enough time for an importer to provide information sufficient to establish to CBP's satisfaction that detained goods bear genuine marks.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees. Although CBP may release section (b)(1) information to the mark owner after the seven business day response period, the importer has the option of submitting information to CBP up to the end of the detention period or until CBP determines that the goods bear counterfeit marks. CBP believes that this time frame is adequate to protect importers' interests.

E. Comments Concerning Information Released

Comment: Several commenters objected to the disclosure of information provided in § 133.21(b)(2) of the interim regulation whereby CBP may disclose to the mark owner, prior to CBP's seizure of the goods as bearing counterfeit marks, the quantity and description of merchandise involved in a suspect shipment.

CBP Response: CBP can disclose the quantity and description of merchandise at any time after merchandise is presented for examination as CBP does not consider this information to be protected by the Trade Secrets Act. CBP articulated this position in T.D. 98-21, published in the Federal Register (63 FR 11996) on March 12, 1998. Nothing in the comments has persuaded CBP to change its view.

Comment: Several commenters contended that the interim regulation is unclear as to the meaning of “quantity” and the manner by which CBP will provide the mark owner with a description of merchandise “from the entry.”

CBP Response: CBP agrees that these provisions require more clarity. Accordingly, CBP is amending the regulation to provide that the quantity of merchandise involved in the detention and the description of detained merchandise will be drawn from CBP arrival or entry documents or their electronic equivalents, which could include, but will not be limited to, the CBP Form 3461, the CBP Form 7533, the CBP Form 7512 (if the detention is for merchandise moving in-bond), the cargo manifest (if no entry has yet been filed), or any other document or information, as applicable.

Comment: One commenter requested that CBP reconsider the scope of information that it redacts when providing samples or photographs/images to a mark owner under § 133.21(b)(3) of the interim regulation. The commenter observed that determining whether suspect goods bear counterfeit marks may require a mark owner to review information such as product codes, packaging, and SKUs and that disclosing these marks and numbers does not violate the Trade Secrets Act as they may not necessarily identify the importer.

CBP Response: CBP believes that in order to protect importers' interests, any identifying information such as serial numbers, dates of manufacture, lot codes, batch numbers, universal product codes, the name or address of the manufacturer, exporter, or importer of the merchandise, or any mark that could reveal the name or address of the manufacturer, exporter, or importer of the merchandise, in alphanumeric or other formats, should be redacted when CBP provides samples, photographs, or images prior to the running of the seven business day response period.

Comment: One commenter stated that the interim regulation is deficient in that it provides for disclosure of only certain limited information appearing on the packaging of suspect merchandise. The commenter contended that the mark owner may need more information to provide meaningful assistance.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's reading of the interim regulation. CBP is not limited to disclosing information appearing only on the packaging of suspect merchandise. Once the seven business day response period has expired without resolution of authenticity, CBP is authorized to disclose to the mark owner all information appearing on the goods as well as all information appearing on their retail packaging. The NDAA specifically authorizes CBP to disclose certain information to a mark owner, including unredacted samples and photographs/images of suspect merchandise (and its retail packaging). The interim rule is consistent with that grant of authority.

F. Comments Concerning Post-Seizure

Comment: Several commenters recommend that CBP make the interim rule's post-seizure disclosure provision mandatory rather than discretionary, requiring CBP, in every case, to provide unredacted photographs/images or samples of the goods seized to the mark owner.

CBP Response: CBP does not believe that post-seizure disclosure to mark owners needs to be made mandatory through regulations.

Comment: One commenter recommended that CBP amend the interim regulation to require the retention of seized counterfeit goods for at least 60 days after CBP has provided the mark owner with formal notice of the seizure. The commenter stated that CBP often disposes of the goods before notice is given, depriving mark owners of the opportunity to request and obtain samples.

CBP Response: The comment inaccurately reflects CBP's procedure regarding seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of goods bearing counterfeit marks. Generally, CBP retains seized merchandise for at least 90 days from the date of seizure, through completion of the forfeiture process, prior to destruction of the goods. Section 133.21(d) of the interim regulation (redesignated in this final rule as § 133.21(e)) requires CBP to disclose to the mark owner comprehensive importation information, if available, within 30 business days of the notice of seizure to the importer.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that CBP commit to rendering determinations on 19 U.S.C. 1618 petitions (challenging the seizure or forfeiture or both) no later than 30 days after such petitions are filed.

CBP Response: Part 171 of the CBP regulations governs the agency's handling of petitions for remission or mitigation of fines, penalties, and forfeitures filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1618. CBP believes that the administrative procedure set forth in its existing regulations is adequate to protect importers' interests in matters involving seized merchandise and that an amendment to these regulations is unnecessary.

Conclusion and List of Changes

Based on the foregoing analysis of the comments and CBP's further consideration of the matter, CBP is adopting the interim amendments to the CBP regulations published in the Federal Register (77 FR 24375) on April 24, 2012 as final with the exception of the amendments to §§ 133.21 and 151.16 which are being adopted as final with the following modifications:

CBP is amending § 133.21 to enhance its readability and to reflect the clarifications, amendments and organizational changes discussed above. Specifically:

1. CBP is amending § 133.21(b) by eliminating the optional 30-day extension of the detention period as CBP now believes that such an extension is unnecessary.

2. CBP is reorganizing the text of § 133.21(b) by redesignating the existing introductory text and paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) as newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5). Within § 133.21(b):

• Paragraph (b)(1) restates the 30-day detention period provided for in 1499(c).

• Paragraph (b)(2)(i) specifies that a notice of detention is issued to the importer pursuant to 19 CFR 151.16(c) and 19 U.S.C. 1499(c), and that CBP will also inform the importer that certain information may already have been disclosed to the owner of the mark, or may be disclosed concurrent with the issuance of the notice of detention, and that the importer has seven business days from the date of the notice of detention to present information that establishes, to CBP's satisfaction, that the detained merchandise does not bear a counterfeit mark.

• New paragraph (b)(2)(ii) provides that where the importer does not provide information within the seven business day response period, or the information provided is insufficient for CBP to determine that the merchandise does not bear a counterfeit mark, CBP may proceed with the disclosure to the owner of the mark and will so notify the importer.

• Paragraph (b)(3) sets forth the information CBP may disclose to the mark owner (information appearing on goods and their retail packaging and unredacted samples, photographs/images, etc.).

• Redesignated paragraph (b)(4) (paragraph (b)(2) of the interim regulation) is amended to clarify that the “description of the merchandise” and the “quantity involved” that CBP releases to the mark owner (along with other data) prior to issuance of a detention notice is taken from the paper or electronic equivalent of CBP Forms 3461, 7533, 7512, cargo manifest, advance electronic information, or other entry document as appropriate. After issuance of a detention notice, this information is taken from the notice of detention. CBP will release the information at the same time it issues the detention notice to the importer, or as soon afterward as possible.

• Paragraph (b)(5) provides for release of redacted photographs/images and samples to the mark owner.

3. In § 133.21(c), pertaining to release of unredacted photographs, images and samples to the mark owner under paragraph (b), CBP is:

• Clarifying the heading text to state that the provision pertains to conditions associated with the disclosure.

• Adding language to provide that, with the release of the information or the photographs, images or samples, CBP will notify the mark owner that some or all of the information it is receiving may be subject to the protections of the Trade Secrets Act, and is only being provided to the mark owner to assist CBP in determining whether the merchandise described in the notice of detention bears counterfeit marks.

• Reorganizing the provision into two sub-paragraphs to enhance readability.

4. Sections 133.21(b)(5), (c)(2),and (f), relating to the terms of the IPR sample bond, are amended to clarify that the IPR sample bond is posted to indemnify the importer or owner of the sample against any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing of the sample by CBP to the owner of the mark.

5. CBP is adding a new paragraph (d) to § 133.21 to provide for release of unredacted samples to the importer any time after presentation of the suspect goods to CBP for examination.

6. Existing § 133.21(d), pertaining to the seizure of goods and disclosure of comprehensive importation information to the mark owner, is re-designated as paragraph (e) in this final rule and clarified to reflect that the “description” and the “quantity” of the merchandise provided to the mark owner by CBP is taken from the notice of seizure (and intent to forfeit).

7. Existing § 133.21(e), pertaining to photographs/images and samples being made available to the mark owner after seizure, is re-designated as paragraph (f) in this final rule.

8. Existing § 133.21(f), pertaining to consent of the mark owner, is re-designated as paragraph (g) in this final rule.

This document amends the specific authority citation for §§ 133.21 through 133.25 to reflect 10 U.S.C. 2302.

Lastly, this final rule amends § 151.16(a) by removing the reference to “imports of articles bearing counterfeit marks or suspected counterfeit marks.”

CBP is adopting as final, with the clarifications and amendments discussed above, the interim amendments set forth in CBP Dec. 12-10 that went into effect on April 24, 2012. The additional changes made to the interim regulation in this final rule include non-substantive editorial changes that improve readability, as well as logical-outgrowth changes to the interim regulation's provisions, as described above. In an effort to provide the trade, if necessary, with the opportunity to make adjustments to their business practices, CBP has determined to delay the effective date of this final rule for a period of 30 days from the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).

One of CBP's primary roles is to safeguard the U.S. economy from the importation of counterfeit goods. Prior to the publication of the interim final rule, if CBP needed assistance in determining whether an import bears counterfeit marks, the agency was restricted to only sharing redacted samples of the import in question with a right holder. However, due to the highly technical nature of some imports and the continuously increasing sophistication of counterfeiters, sharing redacted samples with right holders is no longer sufficient in certain circumstances. To broaden CBP's ability to identify counterfeit goods, Congress included a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) (Public Law 112-81, 10 U.S.C. 2303) that allows CBP to share unredacted samples of imports suspected of bearing counterfeit marks with the right holders of the trademarks in question in order to aid CBP in determining whether the suspect goods are violative.1

1 Note that this rule does not alter CBP's ability to provide redacted photographs/images, samples, or retail packaging (including labels) of suspect merchandise to the right holder of the trademark without prior notification to the importer.

By sharing unredacted samples of imports with mark owners, however, mark owners may gain access to some sensitive information about the importer, such as its supply chain and purchase price. To mitigate the potential unnecessary release of an importer's trade secrets to a mark owner, the interim final rule established a procedure to allow an importer seven business days to demonstrate to CBP that suspect marks are not violative. If the importer is unable to do so, CBP may seek assistance from the mark owner by releasing unredacted samples of the import(s) in question. As discussed earlier, during the comment period for the interim final rule CBP received comments regarding the possible misuse of trade secret information by mark owners when viewing unredacted samples. In order to address such misuses, and thus any potential business impacts to the importation of legitimate trade, CBP is amending the interim regulation to provide that the disclosure to the mark owner must include a statement informing the mark owner that some or all of the information being disclosed may be information protected from disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905).

As described in the “Paperwork Reduction Act” section of this document, CBP estimates that it takes an importer two hours to provide proof to CBP that establishes that suspect goods do not bear counterfeit marks. CBP estimates the average wage of an importer to be $28.50 per hour. Thus, CBP estimates it will cost a small entity $57.00 to demonstrate that its import does not bear counterfeit marks. CBP does not believe $57.00 constitutes a significant economic impact. CBP does recognize, however, that such repeated inquiries could eventually rise to the level of a significant economic impact. CBP lacks data on how often a particular importer would be affected by this regulation. CBP subject matter experts, however, are unaware of any instances where a particular importer was repeatedly requested to provide information to CBP for the purpose of establishing that an import does not bear counterfeit marks. Additionally, based on CBP's experience over the years (including in implementing the interim rule), CBP anticipates that law-abiding importers will not be subject to the provisions in this rule on a repeated basis. Further, we note that providing this information to CBP is optional on the part of the importer. CBP did not receive any comments on the interim final rule regarding the cost to importers of providing proof to CBP that establishes that suspect goods do not bear counterfeit marks. Due to the harm that counterfeit goods pose to public health and safety, this rule went into effect as an interim final rule on the date of its publication on April 24, 2012. As discussed earlier, CBP lacks data on how many importers have been affected by the interim rule, and on how often any particular importer has been affected. As a general matter, any importer may be affected by this rule, and that is because the rule will be applied when CBP cannot make a determination—without the use of these regulatory provisions—as to whether an import(s) bears a counterfeit mark. Because this rule could be applied to any importer, CBP believes that this rule will potentially have an effect on a substantial number of small entities.

While this rule will potentially have an effect on a substantial number of small entities, CBP does not believe that an estimated cost to an importer of $57.00 per affected import constitutes a significant economic impact (also, as discussed above, providing this information to CBP is optional on the part of the importer). Thus, CBP certifies this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the collections of information for this document are included in an existing collection for Notices of Detention (OMB control number 1651-0073). An agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The burden hours related to the Notice of Detention for OMB control number 1651-0073 are as follows:

Number of Respondents: 1,350.

Number of Responses: 1,350.

Time per Response: 2 hours.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,700.

There is no change in burden hours under this collection with this rule.

Signing Authority

This rulemaking is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his or her delegate) to approve regulations concerning trademark enforcement.

List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 133

Copying or simulating trademarks, Copyrights, Counterfeit trademarks, Customs duties and inspection, Detentions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise, Seizures and forfeitures, Trademarks, Trade names.

19 CFR Part 151

Customs duties and inspection, Examination, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sampling and testing.

Amendments to the CBP Regulations

Accordingly, the interim rule amending parts 133 and 151 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 133 and 151), which was published at 77 FR 24375 on April 24, 2012, is adopted as final with the following changes:

PART 133—TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND COPYRIGHTS 1. The general authority citation for part 133 continues, and the specific authority citation for §§ 133.21 through 133.25 is added, to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 1124, 1125, 1127; 17 U.S.C. 101, 601, 602, 603; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202, 1499, 1526, 1624; 31 U.S.C. 9701. Sections 133.21 through 133.25 also issued under 18 U.S.C. 1905; Sec. 818(g), Pub. L. 112-81 (10 U.S.C. 2302);

2. In § 133.21: a. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised; b. Paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) are redesignated as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g); c. A new paragraph (d) is added; and d. Redesignated paragraphs (e) and (f) are revised.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 133.21 Articles suspected of bearing counterfeit marks.

(b) Detention, notice, and disclosure of information—(1) Detention period. CBP may detain any article of domestic or foreign manufacture imported into the United States that bears a mark suspected by CBP of being a counterfeit version of a mark that is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is recorded with CBP pursuant to subpart A of this part. The detention will be for a period of up to 30 days from the date on which the merchandise is presented for examination. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1499(c), if, after the detention period, the article is not released, the article will be deemed excluded for the purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4).

(2) Notice of detention to importer and disclosure to owner of the mark—(i) Notice and seven business day response period. Within five business days from the date of a decision to detain suspect merchandise, CBP will notify the importer in writing of the detention as set forth in § 151.16(c) of this chapter and 19 U.S.C. 1499. CBP will also inform the importer that for purposes of assisting CBP in determining whether the detained merchandise bears counterfeit marks:

(A) CBP may have previously disclosed to the owner of the mark, prior to issuance of the notice of detention, limited importation information concerning the detained merchandise, as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and, in any event, such information will be released to the owner of the mark, if available, no later than the date of issuance of the notice of detention; and

(B) CBP may disclose to the owner of the mark information that appears on the detained merchandise and/or its retail packaging, including unredacted photographs, images, or samples, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, unless the importer presents information within seven business days of the notification establishing that the detained merchandise does not bear a counterfeit mark.

(ii) Failure of importer to respond or insufficient response to notice. Where the importer does not provide information within the seven business day response period, or the information provided is insufficient for CBP to determine that the merchandise does not bear a counterfeit mark, CBP may proceed with the disclosure of information described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section to the owner of the mark and will so notify the importer.

(3) Disclosure to owner of the mark of information appearing on detained merchandise and/or its retail packaging, including unredacted photographs, images or samples. When making a disclosure to the owner of the mark under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, CBP may disclose information appearing on the merchandise and/or its retail packaging (including labels), images (including photographs) of the merchandise and/or its retail packaging in its condition as presented for examination (i.e., an unredacted condition), or a sample of the merchandise and/or its retail packaging in its condition as presented for examination. The release of a sample will be in accordance with, and subject to, the bond and return requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. The disclosure may include any serial numbers, dates of manufacture, lot codes, batch numbers, universal product codes, or other identifying marks appearing on the merchandise or its retail packaging (including labels), in alphanumeric or other formats.

(4) Disclosure to owner of the mark of limited importation information. From the time merchandise is presented for examination, CBP may disclose to the owner of the mark limited importation information in order to obtain assistance in determining whether an imported article bears a counterfeit mark. Where CBP does not disclose this information to the owner of the mark prior to issuance of the notice of detention, it will do so concurrently with the issuance of the notice of detention, unless the information is unavailable, in which case CBP will release the information as soon as possible after issuance of the notice of detention. The limited importation information CBP will disclose to the owner of the mark consists of:

(i) The date of importation;

(ii) The port of entry;

(iii) The description of the merchandise, for merchandise not yet detained, from the paper or electronic equivalent of the entry (as defined in § 142.3(a)(1) or (b) of this chapter), the CBP Form 7512, cargo manifest, advance electronic information or other entry document as appropriate, or, for detained merchandise, from the notice of detention;

(iv) The quantity, for merchandise not yet detained, as declared on the paper or electronic equivalent of the entry (as defined in § 142.3(a)(1) or (b) of this chapter), the CBP Form 7512, cargo manifest, advance electronic information, or other entry document as appropriate, or, for detained merchandise, from the notice of detention; and

(v) The country of origin of the merchandise.

(5) Disclosure to owner of the mark of redacted photographs, images and samples. Notwithstanding the notice and seven business day response procedure of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, CBP may, in order to obtain assistance in determining whether an imported article bears a counterfeit mark and at any time after presentation of the merchandise for examination, provide to the owner of the mark photographs, images, or a sample of the suspect merchandise or its retail packaging (including labels), provided that identifying information has been removed, obliterated, or otherwise obscured. Identifying information includes, but is not limited to, serial numbers, dates of manufacture, lot codes, batch numbers, universal product codes, the name or address of the manufacturer, exporter, or importer of the merchandise, or any mark that could reveal the name or address of the manufacturer, exporter, or importer of the merchandise, in alphanumeric or other formats. CBP may release to the owner of the mark a sample under this paragraph when the owner furnishes to CBP a bond in the form and amount specified by CBP, conditioned to indemnify the importer or owner of the imported article against any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing of the sample by CBP to the owner of the mark. CBP may demand the return of the sample at any time. The owner of the mark must return the sample to CBP upon demand or at the conclusion of any examination, testing, or similar procedure performed on the sample. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or lost while in the possession of the owner of the mark, the owner must, in lieu of return of the sample, certify to CBP that: “The sample described as [insert description] and provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.21(b)(5) was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination, testing, or other use.”

(c) Conditions of disclosure to owner of the mark of information appearing on detained merchandise and/or its retail packaging, including unredacted photographs, images and samples—(1) Disclosure for limited purpose of assisting CBP in counterfeit mark determinations. In order to obtain assistance in determining whether an imported article bears a counterfeit mark, CBP may disclose to the owner of the mark, prior to seizure, information appearing on the merchandise and/or its retail packaging (including labels), unredacted photographs or images of the merchandise and/or its retail packaging in its condition as presented for examination, or an unredacted sample of the imported merchandise and/or its retail packaging in its condition as presented for examination, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (3) of this section. Upon release of such information, photographs, images, or samples, CBP will notify the owner of the mark that some or all of the information being released may be subject to the protections of the Trade Secrets Act, and that CBP is only disclosing the information to the owner of the mark for the purpose of assisting CBP in determining whether the merchandise bears a counterfeit mark.

(2) Bond. CBP may release to the owner of the mark a sample under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (3) of this section when the owner furnishes to CBP a bond in the form and amount specified by CBP, conditioned to indemnify the importer or owner of the imported article against any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing of the sample by CBP to the owner of the mark. CBP may demand the return of the sample at any time. The owner of the mark must return the sample to CBP upon demand or at the conclusion of any examination, testing, or similar procedure performed on the sample. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or lost while in the possession of the owner of the mark, the owner must, in lieu of return of the sample, certify to CBP that: “The sample described as [insert description] and provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.21(c) was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination, testing, or other use.”

(d) Disclosure to importer of unredacted photographs, images, and samples. CBP will disclose to the importer unredacted photographs, images, or an unredacted sample of imported merchandise suspected of bearing a counterfeit mark at any time after the merchandise is presented to CBP for examination. CBP may demand the return of the sample at any time. The importer must return the sample to CBP upon demand or at the conclusion of any examination, testing, or similar procedure performed on the sample. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or lost while in the possession of the importer, the importer must, in lieu of return of the sample, certify to CBP that: “The sample described as [insert description] and provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.21(d) was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination, testing, or other use.”

(e) Seizure and disclosure to owner of the mark of comprehensive importation information. Upon a determination by CBP, made any time after the merchandise has been presented for examination, that an article of domestic or foreign manufacture imported into the United States bears a counterfeit mark, CBP will seize such merchandise and, in the absence of the written consent of the owner of the mark, forfeit the seized merchandise in accordance with the customs laws. When merchandise is seized under this section, CBP will disclose to the owner of the mark the following comprehensive importation information, if available, within 30 business days from the date of the notice of the seizure:

(1) The date of importation;

(2) The port of entry;

(3) The description of the merchandise from the notice of seizure;

(4) The quantity as set forth in the notice of seizure;

(5) The country of origin of the merchandise;

(6) The name and address of the manufacturer;

(7) The name and address of the exporter; and

(8) The name and address of the importer.

(f) Disclosure to owner of the mark, following seizure, of unredacted photographs, images, and samples. At any time following a seizure of merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark under this section, and upon receipt of a proper request from the owner of the mark, CBP may provide, if available, photographs, images, or a sample of the seized merchandise and its retail packaging, in its condition as presented for examination, to the owner of the mark. To obtain a sample under this paragraph, the owner of the mark must furnish to CBP a bond in the form and amount specified by CBP, conditioned to indemnify the importer or owner of the imported article against any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing of the sample by CBP to the owner of the mark. CBP may demand the return of the sample at any time. The owner of the mark must return the sample to CBP upon demand or at the conclusion of the examination, testing, or other use in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for infringement. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or lost while in the possession of the owner of the mark, the owner must, in lieu of return of the sample, certify to CBP that: “The sample described as [insert description] and provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.21(f) was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination, testing, or other use.”

PART 151—EXAMINATION, SAMPLING, AND TESTING OF MERCHANDISE 3. The general authority citation for part 151 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i) and (j), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 1624;

§ 151.16 [Amended]
4. Section 151.16(a) is amended by removing the words, “imports of articles bearing counterfeit marks or suspected counterfeit marks,”.
R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: September 15, 2015. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2015-23543 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0046] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snake Creek, Islamorada, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary interim rule and request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Snake Creek Bridge across Snake Creek, Islamorada, FL. This temporary interim rule will change the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This temporary interim rule will allow Snake Creek Bridge to open on signal, except that from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour. The Bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, and local officials requested this action to assist in reducing vehicle traffic caused by frequent bridge openings.

DATES:

This temporary interim rule will be effective from 8 a.m. on September 18, 2015 to 6 p.m. on May 10, 2016.

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 15, 2016. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0046 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 methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary interim rule, call or email Coast Guard Sector Key West Waterways Management Division; telephone 305-292-8772, 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 CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register §  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-2015-0046), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, 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-2015-0046] 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 this rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0046) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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 on or before November 1, 2015, using one of the 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.

Regulatory History and Information

On March 27, 2015, we published a test deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Snake Creek, Islamorada, FL” in the Federal Register (80 FR 16280). The comment period for the test deviation remains open until September 14, 2015.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim 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 delaying an amendment to the Snake Creek Bridge schedule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. Pursuant to the temporary deviation published on March 27, 2015, the Snake Creek Bridge operating schedule was modified to determine if vehicular traffic congestion could be reduced while accommodating the reasonable needs of navigation. While the comment period for that deviation remains open, the Coast Guard is implementing this rule and seeks additional comment because the test deviation did not offer insight on the impacts of an alternate operating schedule during fall or winter months. Preliminary evidence shows that the revised schedule is beneficial to the commuting public and reverting to the schedule published in 33 CFR 117.331 may not be necessary to provide for the reasonable needs of navigation on Snake Creek.

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 Registerfor the same reasons discussed above.

B. Basis and Purpose

The Snake Creek Bridge in Islamorada, Florida has a vertical clearance of 27 feet in the closed position. The normal operating schedule as published in 33 CFR 117.331 is as follows: The draw of the Snake Creek Bridge, at Islamorada, Florida, shall open on signal, except that from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour. This schedule has been in effect since 2001.

The Bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, and local officials requested a change in the operating schedule to assist in reducing vehicle traffic caused by frequent bridge openings.

The Coast Guard initiated a test of a new schedule for the Snake Creek Bridge that was based on the following input:

1. As reported by village and city councils, vehicle traffic near the Snake Creek Bridge has negatively impacted Islamorada and surrounding communities during peak vehicle traffic time periods. A temporary deviation initiated a test of a new bridge operation schedule to reduce vehicle traffic caused by bridge openings.

2. On January 8-10, 2013, the Florida Department of Transportation conducted a traffic monitoring study 1400 feet south of the Snake Creek Bridge on US-1. The study found peak traffic volumes occurring at 8:45 a.m. and between 12:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. By reducing the number of scheduled openings between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., this rule seeks to reduce vehicle traffic on US-1 while maintaining the reasonable needs of navigation on Snake Creek.

The types of vessels navigating Snake Creek include sport fishing vessels and catamaran sailboats.

During the test deviation, vessels signaled the bridge to open on the top of the hour from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Any vessel that can safely transit under the Snake Creek Bridge while closed may continue to navigate under the bridge during this deviation.

Vessel operators may also consider the use of Channel Five, a navigable channel above Long Key, Florida 5.7 nautical miles southwest of Snake Creek Bridge. The fixed US-1 bridge across Channel Five has a vertical clearance of 65 feet.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Interim Rule

A test deviation published on March 27, 2015 allowed the Snake Creek Bridge to remain closed with the exception of on-demand openings once an hour schedule between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. seven days a week. The deviation called for on-demand openings at all other times. The Coast Guard is initiating this temporary interim rule to allow the time necessary to review the impacts of the test schedule and how it will impact all modes of traffic during seasonal traffic.

Comments on the temporary deviation as well as any others received during the temporary interim rule comment period may be used to determine if a final rule should be implemented to modify the operating schedule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this temporary interim 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 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 section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it allows for openings every hour and meets the reasonable needs of navigation while helping to decongest vehicular traffic on US-1. Vessels capable of transiting under the Bridge may do so at any time.

2. Impact on Small Entities

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

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will allow for once an hour openings and vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

This rule 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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. Effective 8 a.m. on September 18, 2015 to 6 p.m. on May 10, 2016, suspend § 117.331 and add § 117.T331 to read as follows:
§ 117.T331 Snake Creek.

The draw of the Snake Creek Bridge, at Islamorada, Florida will open on signal, except that from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour.

Dated: September 8, 2015. S. A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-23537 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0777] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Kaskaskia River MM 28 to 29; New Athens, IL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Kaskaskia River, surface to bottom, between mile 28 and 29. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and property from potential damage and safety hazards during the New Athens Drag Boat Race. During the period of enforcement, entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 2015 and September 20, 2015. This rule will be enforced with actual notice from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 2015 and September 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0777. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Providing a full notice period is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the effectiveness of the temporary safety zone until after the planned event. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and the public from the safety hazards associated with this high speed race event on the Kaskaskia River in New Athens, IL. Completing the full NPRM process is unnecessary due to the fact that there is minimal commercial traffic in the area and that notices will be made using Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. Mariners will have the ability to request entrance into the zone by contacting the COTP during the closure period. These requests will be handled on a case by case basis. Additionally, a delay to the effective date for this safety zone would be contrary to public interest because it would interfere with the planned race and the contractual obligations related to this event, and it would put the safety of the spectators and participants of the event at risk.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of the rule is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the effectiveness of the temporary safety zone until after the planned event.

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

The Kentucky Drag Boat Association's annual New Athens Drag Boat Race is scheduled for September 19 and 20, 2015. The event is listed in Table 2 of 33 CFR 100.801 number seven for the second weekend in September; however, the event is being held on the third weekend of September this year. The race will feature inboard, outboard, and jet-propelled vessels competing on a closed course on the Kaskaskia River between miles 28 and 29. The Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to keep persons and property clear of any potential hazards associated with the race.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 2015 and September 20, 2015, for the New Athens Drag Boat Race. The event will take place on the Kaskaskia River and the safety zone will include all waters of the Kaskaskia River between miles 28 and 29. The Coast Guard will enforce the temporary safety zone and may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. During the periods of enforcement, no vessels may transit into, through, or remain within this Coast Guard safety zone closure area. Deviation from this safety zone may be requested by contacting the COTP Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi at 314-269-2332. Deviations will be considered on a case-by case basis.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This temporary final rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced for a limited time period. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP Upper Mississippi River or other designated representative. Based on the location, limited safety zone size, and short duration of the enforcement period, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal. Additionally, notice of this safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners. Deviation from this rule may be requested from the COTP Upper Mississippi River and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Kaskaskia River between mile markers 28 and 29 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 2015 and September 20, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: this rule will be enforced for a short amount of time each day and commercial traffic is minimal in this area.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. A new temporary § 165.T08-0777 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0777 Safety Zone; Kaskaskia River between MM 28 and 29; New Athens, IL.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Kaskaskia River between MM 28 and 29, New Athens, IL.

(b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 2015 and September 20, 2015. This rule will be enforced with actual notice from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 19, 2015 and September 20, 2015.

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

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

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

(d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative will inform the public through Local Notice to Mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned and published dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: August 13, 2015. M. L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2015-23535 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0833] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Celebration Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Celebration fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.

DATES:

This rule will be effective from 9:15 p.m. until 10:05 p.m. on September 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0833]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

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

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 9:15 p.m. and 10:05 p.m. on September 19, 2015, a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie in Cleveland, OH. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft poses a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

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 Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Celebration fireworks display. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:05 p.m. on September 19, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland, OH within a 280-foot radius of position 41° 30′34.23″ N. and 81°41′56.3″ 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. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie; Cleveland, OH on the evening of September 19, 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 50 minutes late 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. Section 165.T09-0833 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0833 Safety Zone; Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Celebration Fireworks, Lake Erie; Cleveland, OH.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland, OH within a 280-foot radius of position 41°30′34.23″ N. and 81°41′56.3″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective and will be enforced on September 19, 2015 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:05 p.m.

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

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

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

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall 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 27, 2015. B. W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-23536 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0570] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; 520 Bridge Construction, Lake Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Washington around the east span of the 520 Bridge in Seattle, Washington due to ongoing construction. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public and workers involved in the bridge construction when construction barges are located in the east span of the bridge. The safety zone will prohibit any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from September 18, 2015 through October 5, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 5, 2015 until September 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0570 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. 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 Ryan Griffin, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone (206) 217-6051, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 exists as notice would be impracticable due to the unexpected construction delays. It would be impracticable to publish an NPRM as the safety zone must be in effect by September 5, 2015

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the construction of the east span of the 520 Bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

Ongoing construction on the 520 Bridge in Seattle, Washington is creating hazardous conditions around the construction. A safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public and workers involved in the bridge construction when construction barges are located in the east span of the bridge. As construction was originally intended to be completed by September, a temporary final rule was established on June 22, 2015 through September 4, 2015 to protect the construction personal, maritime public, and the marine environment around the east span of the 520 bridge during times of construction operations (see 80 FR 38944, July 8, 2015). However, as construction has needed to continue, a new safety zone is needed to ensure safety.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Puget sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge construction starting September 5, 2015 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the 520 Bridge east span construction operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being repaired.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The safety zone established in this rule encompasses all waters within 100 yards of the east span of the 520 Bridge, located on Lake Washington and is effective from September 5, 2015 through October 2, 2015 when a construction barge is present in the safety zone. Vessels wishing to enter the safety zone must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001 or VHF Channel 16. If permission for entry is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the safety zone established by it is both limited in size and duration and there is an alternative route for vessels with an air draft that permits safe passage under the west span of the bridge.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated under paragraph D.1., Regulatory Planning and Review.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting the Indian River Bay along the shoreline of Long Neck, Delaware, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters for the duration of the fireworks display. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 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.T13-290 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-290 Safety Zone; 520 Bridge, Lake Washington; Seattle, WA.

(a) Location. The following area is designated as a safety zone: All waters within 100 yards of the east span of the 520 Bridge located on Lake Washington in Seattle, Washington.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in subpart C of this part, no person may enter the safety zone or bring or cause to be brought any vessel into the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port. Persons wishing to enter the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port by contacting the Joint Harbor Operation Center at 206-217-6001 or VHF Channel 16. If permission for entry is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.

(c) Dates. This rule is effective from September 5, 2015 through October 2, 2015 when a construction barge is present inside the safety zone.

Dated: September 3, 2015. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2015-23526 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0514; FRL-9933-97-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the state plan for designated facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act for the State of Missouri. This direct final action will amend the state plan to include a new plan and associated rule implementing the emissions guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective November 17, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 19, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0514, by one of the following methods:

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

2. Email: [email protected]

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

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0514. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7028 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background II. Analysis of State Submittal III. What Action is EPA Taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that state regulatory agencies implement the emission guidelines and compliance times using a state plan developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. Section 111(d) establishes general requirements and procedures on state plan submittals for the control of designated pollutants. Section 129 requires emission guidelines to be promulgated for all categories of solid waste incineration units, including CISWI units. Section 129 mandates that all plan requirements be at least as protective and restrictive as the promulgated emission guidelines. This includes fixed final compliance dates, fixed compliance schedules, and Title V permitting requirements for all affected sources. Section 129 also requires that state plans be submitted to EPA within one year after EPA's promulgation of the emission guidelines and compliance times.

On February 7, 2013, EPA finalized emission limitations for CISWI units and definitions for Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste, both under the same notice at 78 FR 9112. This notice was the final decision on the CISWI rule originally published March 21, 2011, and reconsidered after further public comments were solicited and received. The notice also included final amendments to the NHSM rule. The definition of solid waste in the NHSM rule determines whether a particular incinerator is covered under another incinerator rule.

The state submitted a negative declaration on May 9, 2011. Subsequently, the state found that they did have applicable units and therefore, the state issued a new rule and state plan to meet its obligations under this new Federal rule. The state rule, 10 CSR 10-6.161, for CISWI became effective on November 21, 2013. The associated state plan was issued concurrently with the new rule. The state's rule incorporates by reference the Federal rule.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The emission guidelines and compliance times are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans must contain specific information and the legal mechanisms necessary to implement the emission guidelines and compliance times. The requirements are as follows:

Inventory of affected CISWI units, including those that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled.

Inventory of emissions from affected CISWI units in Missouri.

Compliance schedules for each affected CISWI unit with a final compliance date no later than February 7, 2018 or three (3) years after the effective date of state plan approval, whichever is earlier.

Emission limitations, operator training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits for affected CISWI units that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in Subpart DDDD.

Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Certification that the hearing on the State plan was held, a list of witnesses and organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presenation or written submission.

Provision for State progress reports to EPA.

Identification of enforceable State mechanisms that were selected for implementing the emission guidelines of Subpart DDDD.

Demonstration of Missouri's legal authority to carry out the sections 111(d) and 129 State plan.

The state's plan was received on March 5, 2014, in accordance with the requirements for adoption and submittal of state plans for designated facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The plan establishes emission limits for existing CISWI units, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of those limits. Missouri's plan includes all documentation that all of these requirements have been met. The emission limits, testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other aspects of the Federal rule have been adopted. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.161 contains the applicable requirements. The state provided evidence that it complied with the public notice and comment requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

III. What Action is EPA Taking?

Based on the rationale discussed aboved, EPA is taking direct final action to approve Missouri's March 5, 2014, submittal of its 111(d) plan for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the revision to the 111(d) plan if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a section 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a section 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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 November 17, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 approving Missouri's section 111(d)/129 plan revision for CISWI sources may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 3, 2015. Becky Weber, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62 as set forth below:

PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA—Missouri 2. Revise § 62.6360 to read as follows: Air Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
§ 62.6360 Identification of plan.

(a) Identification of plan. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources approved this revision to the Missouri state plan section 111(d) for the purpose of adopting by reference subpart DDDD of part 62, the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) rule, 10 CSR 10-6.161, which became effective on November 21, 2013. This revision was submitted on March 5, 2014.

(b) Identification of sources. The plan applies to existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units that commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999.

(c) The effective date of the amended plan is November 17, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2015-23390 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0375; FRL-9933-02] Fluensulfone; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of fluensulfone in or on tomato, paste. Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., doing business as ADAMA requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective September 18, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 17, 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-2015-0375, 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-2015-0375 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 November 17, 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-2015-0375, 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 July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42462) (FRL-9929-13), 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 5F8365) by Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., doing business as ADAMA, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide fluensulfone, 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-ene-1-sulfonic acid, in or on tomato, paste at 1.0 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ADAMA, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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), 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, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).

In the Federal Register of September 24, 2014 (79 FR 56963) (FRL-9914-35), EPA established tolerances for residues of fluensulfone in or on cucurbit vegetable crop group 9 and fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10 at 0.50 parts per million (ppm). The information available to the Agency in support of the September 24, 2014 final rule showed no concentration of fluensulfone or the metabolite BSA in or on fruiting vegetable commodities and that separate tolerances for residues in or on processed tomato products were unnecessary. Therefore, EPA established a tolerance for residues of fluensulfone in or on fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10 at 0.50 ppm and determined that a separate tolerance for tomato, paste was not necessary.

Since the time of the September 24, 2014 final rule, EPA received a new tomato processing study that demonstrates a concentration of BSA residues in tomato paste (3.5X). Based on this concentration factor and the highest average field trial (HAFT) residues in tomato (0.29 ppm), the Agency determined that the fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10 tolerance at 0.5 ppm is insufficient to cover residues in tomato, paste and therefore a tolerance of 1.0 ppm in or on tomato, paste is necessary to cover residues of BSA.

The Agency assessed the use of fluensulfone in or on tomato, paste at the tolerance of 1.0 ppm and determined that there would be no resulting change in the risk estimates from the previous risk assessment for the chemical. Since the publication of the September 24, 2014 final rule, the toxicity profile of fluensulfone has not changed, and the risk assessments that supported the establishment of those tolerances published in the Federal Register remain valid. The dietary risk assessments for fluensulfone are based on residues of the parent compound only. Since residues of the parent did not concentrate in tomato paste, a new risk assessment is not necessary. Therefore, EPA relies upon those supporting risk assessments and the findings made in the September 24, 2014 Federal Register document, as well as the review of the additional tomato processing data in support of this rule. 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 fluensulfone residues.

For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for the proposed tolerances, please refer to the September 24, 2014 Federal Register document and its supporting documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0593. Further information about EPA's determination that a separate tolerance should be established in or on tomato, paste may be found in the document, “Fluensulfone—Revised Tolerance Recommendation for Tomato Paste.” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0375.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology, a reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography with dual mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS), is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

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 not established a MRL for fluensulfone.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluensulfone, 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-ene-1-sulfonic acid, in or on tomato, paste at 1.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

Dated: September 4, 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 § 180.680, add alphabetically the following commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 180.680 Fluensulfone; tolerances for residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Tomato, paste 1.0 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
    [FR Doc. 2015-23359 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 228 [EPA-R06-OW-2015-0121; FRL-9934-25-Region 6] Ocean Dumping: Modification of Final Site Designation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is modifying the use restrictions of the Galveston, TX Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs) located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas, respectively. These sites are EPA designated ocean dumping sites for the disposal of suitable dredged material. This action is being taken at the request of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District to allow disposal of suitable dredged material from the vicinity of the federal navigation channels to alleviate pressure on the capacity of their upland dredged material placement areas, when necessary.

    DATES:

    This document is effective on October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R06-OW-2015-0121. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ-EC), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-8335, fax number (214) 665-6689; email address [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents A. Potentially Affected Persons B. Background C. Final Action D. Responses to Comments E. Administrative Review 1. Executive Order 12866 2. Paperwork Reduction Act 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks 8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance with Administrative Procedure Act 9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations A. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. EPA's action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean waters offshore of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and other persons with permits to use designated sites offshore of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield, and Brownsville, Texas would be most impacted by this final action. Potentially affected categories and persons include:

    Table 4—A Summary of Proposed Data Collection Standards Category Examples of potentially regulated persons Federal government USACE Civil Works and O & M projects; other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. Industry and general public Port authorities, marinas and harbors, shipyards and marine repair facilities, berth owners State, local and tribal governments Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. Background

    Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean disposal may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the Administrator delegated the authority to designate ocean disposal sites to the Regional Administrator of the Region in which the sites are located. These modifications are being made pursuant to that authority.

    The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H, Section 228.11) state that modifications in disposal site use which involve withdrawal of disposal sites from use or permanent changes in the total specified quantities or types of waste permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site will be made by promulgation in this Part 228. This site modification of types of waste permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site are being published as a final rulemaking in accordance with § 228.11(a) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits changes in the total specified quantities or types of waste permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site based upon changed circumstances concerning use of the site.

    C. Final Action

    The modifications of the use restrictions on the Galveston, TX, Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District in a March 27, 2015 letter. The current wording within the 40 CFR 228.15 restricts the use of these ODMDS to only dredged material originating from specific federal channel reaches associated with each ODMDS. For Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project) ODMDS and the Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), the ODMDSs are restricted to receive only construction dredged material from channel improvement projects at Freeport and Brazos Island Harbor, respectively. Modeling shows that future disposal capacity is limited at the placement areas typically used by the Galveston District when ocean disposal is not an option. As a result of these limitations, there is a need to change the use restrictions placed on these ODMDSs to include suitable dredged material from the greater vicinities of the respective federal channels. The restriction modification will provide for sufficient future dredged material disposal capacity for material originating from dredging areas within each Federal channel and its vicinity.

    D. Responses to Comments

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2015 (80 FR 34871), as docket number EPA-EPA-R06-OW-2015-0121. The comment period closed on August 3, 2015. The EPA received one letter on the proposed rule from the Department of Interior stating that they have no comment. As no comments were received, the EPA has no responses to comments for the proposed rule.

    E. Administrative Review 1. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `significant,” and therefore subject to office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and other requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:

    (a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;

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

    (c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof: or

    (d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

    This Final rule should have minimal impact on State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. Consequently, EPA has determined that this Final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or more non-Federal respondents be approved by OMB. Since the Final rule would not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements, but only clarifies existing requirements, it is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    This Final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. The modification of the Galveston, TX, Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs broadens the use of the sites providing additional options for dredged material placement in the Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas vicinities.

    For these reasons, the Regional Administrator certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more in any year. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this final rule.

    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This Final rule does not have Tribal implications, as defined in Executive Order 13175.

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

    This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance With Administrative Procedure Act

    This Final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This Final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to determine whether the Final rule would have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project area. The Final rule would not significantly affect any low-income or minority population.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Dated: September 9, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING 1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (j)(12)(vi), (j)(13)(vi), (j)(14)(vi), (j)(15)(vi), (j)(17)(vi), (j)(18)(vi), (j)(19)(vi), and (j)(20)(vi) to read as follows:
    § 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

    (j)* * *

    (12) * * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Houston-Galveston, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (13) * * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Freeport, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (14)* * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Freeport, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (15) * * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Matagorda, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (17) * * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Corpus Christi, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (18)* * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Port Mansfield, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (19)* * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Brownsville, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    (20) * * *

    (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material from the greater Brownsville, Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

    [FR Doc. 2015-23475 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 211 Describing Agency Needs CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 68, correct section 211.002-70 to read as follows:

    211.002-70 Contract clause.

    Use the clause at 252.211-7000, Acquisition Streamlining, in all solicitations and contracts for systems acquisition programs.

    [FR Doc. 2015-23456 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 215 Contracting by Negotiation CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 101, in section 215.404-71-4, in paragraph (f), remove the following two sentences: “These are the normal values and ranges. They apply to all situations.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-23457 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 237 Service Contracting CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 296, in section 237.102-70, paragraph (d)(2) is reinstated to read as follows:

    § 237.102-70 Prohibition on contracting for firefighting or security-guard functions.

    (d) * * *

    (2) Follow the procedures at PGI 237.102-70(d) to ensure that the personnel limitations specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this subsection are not exceeded.

    [FR Doc. 2015-23458 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-P
    80 181 Friday, September 18, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 959 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0036; FV15-959-1 PR] Onions Grown in South Texas; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the South Texas Onion Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of onions operating within the area of production. Assessments upon onion handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 959, as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, South Texas onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable onions beginning on August 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions.

    The South Texas onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of South Texas onions. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

    For the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

    The Committee met on June 25, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Budgeted expenditures for 2014-15 were the same. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the rate currently in effect. With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. With the Committee's recommended $0.02 increase, assessment income should be approximately $200,000. This would provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2014-15.

    The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of South Texas onions, and the level of funds in reserve. As mentioned earlier, onion shipments for the year are estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents which should provide $200,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments at the proposed rate, along with interest income, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $23,906) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses as authorized in § 959.43).

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

    Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

    There are approximately 60 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), the average price paid for South Texas onions during the 2013-2014 season was around $12.00 per 50-pound equivalents and total shipments were approximately 4.4 million 50-pound equivalents. Based on this information and data on acreage and yield, the majority of South Texas onion producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. In addition, based on available information, more than 50 percent of South Texas onion handlers could be considered small business under SBA's definition. Thus, the majority of South Texas onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

    This proposal would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of Texas onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent. The proposed assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the 2012-13 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2015-16 fiscal period is estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents. Thus, the $0.05 rate should provide $200,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2014-15.

    With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. The Committee recommended the $0.02 increase to provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.

    Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by this group, based upon the relative value of various activities to the South Texas onion industry. The Committee ultimately determined that 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate, along with interest income, would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.

    A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming season indicates that the grower price for the 2015-16 season should average around $9.55 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue would be approximately .52 percent for the season.

    This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Additionally, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 (Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this proposed action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large South Texas onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

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

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015-16 fiscal period begins on August 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable onions handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 959

    Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 959—ONIONS GROWN IN SOUTH TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 959 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 959.237 is revised to read as follows:
    § 959.237 Assessment rate.

    On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent is established for South Texas onions.

    Dated: September 10, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23436 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 327 [Docket No. FSIS-2012-0028] RIN 0583-AD51 Eligibility of Namibia To Export Meat Products to the United States AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to add Namibia to the list of countries whose meat inspection system is equivalent to the system that the United States has established under the Federal Meat Inspect Act (FMIA) and its implementing regulations. FSIS's review of Namibia's laws, regulations, and inspection implementation show this to be the case.

    At this time, because Namibia advised FSIS that it intends to export only boneless (not ground) raw beef products, such as primal cuts, chuck, blade, and beef trimmings to the United States, FSIS has only assessed Namibia's inspection system with respect to beef. Thus, should this rule become final, Namibia would need to submit additional information for FSIS to review before FSIS would allow Namibia to export product from other types of livestock to the U.S. All products that Namibia exports to the U.S. will be subject to re-inspection at United States ports of entry by FSIS inspectors.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

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

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2012-0028. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    FSIS is proposing to amend its meat products inspection regulations to add Namibia to the list of countries eligible to export meat products to the United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). Namibia is not currently listed as eligible to export such products to the United States.

    Statutory Basis for Proposed Action

    Under the FMIA and the regulations that implement it, meat and meat products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy 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) of 9 CFR requires that a foreign country's meat inspection system provide standards equivalent to those of the United States and provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's legal authority 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)).

    A foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export meat and meat products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: A document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. FSIS requests that countries provide information about their inspection systems through its self-reporting tool (SRT). The SRT is a standardized questionnaire that FSIS provides to foreign governments to gather information that characterizes foreign inspection systems. Through the SRT, FSIS collects information on practices and procedures in six areas, known as equivalence components: (1) Government Oversight, (2) Statutory Authority and Food Safety Regulations, (3) Sanitation, (4) HACCP Systems, (5) Chemical Residue Testing Programs, and (6) Microbiological Testing Programs. FSIS evaluates the information submitted to verify that the critical points in the six equivalence components are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an onsite review is scheduled using a multidisciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program. This comprehensive process is described more fully on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/equivalence/equivalence-process-overview.

    The FMIA and implementing regulations require that foreign countries be listed in the CFR as eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States. FSIS must engage in rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export meat or meat products to the United States are listed in the meat inspection regulations at 9 CFR 327.2(b). Once listed, the government of an eligible country must certify to FSIS that establishments that wish to export meat products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 327.2(a)(3)). Countries must renew certifications of establishments annually (9 CFR 327.2(a)(3)).

    Section 20 of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 620) prohibits the importation into the United States of adulterated or misbranded carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, or meat products of amenable species that are capable of use as human food. To verify that products imported into the United States are not adulterated or misbranded, FSIS reinspects and randomly samples those products at ports of entry, before they enter U.S. commerce.

    Evaluation of the Namibian Meat Inspection System

    In 2002 and again in 2005, the government of Namibia requested approval to export meat (beef) products to the United States. Namibia stated that, if approved, its immediate intent was to export boneless (not ground) raw beef products such as primal cuts, chuck, blade, and beef trimmings to the United States.

    In 2006, FSIS conducted a document review of Namibia's meat (slaughter and processing) inspection system to determine whether that system is equivalent to the United States' meat inspection system. FSIS concluded, on the basis of that review, that Namibia's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were sufficient to achieve the level of public health protection required by FSIS.

    Accordingly, FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit of Namibia's meat inspection system from September 25 to October 11, 2006, to verify whether Namibia's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection effectively implemented a meat inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. FSIS concluded that Namibia's meat inspection system did not meet the equivalence components for government oversight, statutory authority and food safety regulations, sanitation, HACCP, and chemical residue and microbiological testing programs. For example, FSIS found that the CCA did not have adequate administrative controls over the inspection system and lacked a training program to maintain the competency of the inspection personnel and laboratory analysts. Namibia did not provide direct and continuous inspection by the assigned government inspectors. Additionally, the sanitation programs at the establishments visited by the audit team lacked measures to prevent recurring deficiencies that could result in direct product contamination or adulteration, and inspectors did not identify the problems.

    Following the 2006 on-site audit, Namibia provided a corrective action plan that addressed FSIS's findings. Namibia also implemented comprehensive inspection training programs on requirements consistent with FSIS requirements for all its inspection and laboratory personnel.

    From September 2 to 9, 2009, FSIS conducted a follow-up on-site audit to determine whether the outstanding issues identified during the previous on-site audit had been resolved. The 2009 audit identified new systemic deficiencies within the equivalence components for government oversight, sanitation, HACCP, chemical residue, and microbiological testing programs. Specifically, the 2009 audit found that Namibia did not have a plan to continuously analyze and implement staffing requirements in order to provide relief staff assignments during planned and unplanned field inspection personnel absences. In addition, Namibia did not effectively require that establishments maintain sanitation programs to prevent insanitary conditions and product contamination. Namibia also did not provide effective verification to ensure HACCP plans were effectively implemented and did not provide adequate control over laboratory quality systems.

    Following the 2009 on-site audit, Namibia again provided a comprehensive corrective action plan that addressed the findings identified. FSIS reviewed the corrective action plan and concluded that Namibia had satisfactorily addressed all the 2009 audit findings. In addition, FSIS concluded that Namibia's corrective action plan satisfactorily addressed all the previous 2006 audit findings.

    In 2013, FSIS conducted an initial equivalence follow-up on-site audit of Namibia's meat inspection system and verified that Namibia had satisfactorily implemented the corrective action plans proffered in response to the 2009 on-site audit. In 2013, the FSIS audit identified new findings within the equivalence components of government oversight, statutory authority and food safety regulations, sanitation, and chemical residue testing programs. The audit found that although the CCA had implemented all corrective action plans related to government oversight, it was unable to provide any record to demonstrate that the inspection personnel at the local establishments were properly implementing and documenting inspection procedures. Additionally, inspection personnel were including non-compliance findings on the Inspection Verification Activities Sheet instead of using a separate non-compliance record (NR) form to document non-compliance findings. Regarding statutory authority and food safety regulations, Namibia had implemented all related corrective action plans but could not demonstrate that it had adequate records to verify that establishments met Specified Risk Materials (SRM) requirements, to enforce SRM requirements, and to prevent potential SRM contamination from cattle 30 months of age or older. The CCA also had not effectively implemented its verification procedures for sanitation performance standards and was unable to demonstrate how it assessed its residue plan results. Namibia's National Residue Program did not have sampling plan procedures or strategies for dealing with residue violators.

    In response to the 2013 audit findings, Namibia implemented immediate corrective actions and submitted another corrective action plan that addressed the findings identified during the audit of its food safety system. FSIS reviewed Namibia's corrective action plan and concluded that Namibia had satisfactorily addressed 2013 audit findings. FSIS conducted another audit in 2014 to verify that Namibia had effectively implemented those corrective actions.

    On the basis of the 2014 follow-up on-site audit, FSIS has concluded that Namibia has fully implemented the corrective action plan that it had submitted in response to the 2013 audit. FSIS did not find any significant problems during the audit. Furthermore, through the audit, FSIS found that Namibia has implemented a sampling and testing program for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) that is equivalent to FSIS's program. Therefore, FSIS has determined that the CCA has adequately addressed all previous audit findings and met FSIS equivalence criteria related to all six components.

    In summary, FSIS has completed the document review, on-site audits, and verification of corrective actions as part of the equivalence process, and all outstanding issues have been resolved. FSIS has determined that, as implemented, Namibia's inspection system (slaughter and processing) with respect to beef is equivalent to the United States' meat inspection system. The final 2009, 2013, and 2014 audit reports on Namibia's meat inspection system (slaughter and processing) can all be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

    Should this rule become final, Namibia will be eligible to export to the U.S. boneless (not ground) beef raw products such as primal cuts, chucks, blade, and beef trimmings. The government of Namibia will need to certify to FSIS that those establishments that wish to export beef or beef products to the United States are operating in accordance with requirements equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS will verify that the establishments certified by Namibia's government meet the United States requirements through periodic and regularly scheduled audits of Namibia's meat inspection system.

    If this proposed rule is adopted, the beef products that Namibia exports to the United States will be subject to re-inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. Moreover, even though a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of APHIS' regulations, which also regulate the export of meat products from foreign countries to the United States.

    In the future, if Namibia wants to export other meat products to the U.S. (e.g., pork products), it will need to notify FSIS and submit information about its requirements and inspection program for these products. FSIS would then review the information and determine whether the Agency needs to audit the operations in Namibia producing these products to determine whether the requirements and inspection program for these products is equivalent to those in the U.S. Namibia would not be allowed to export additional products to the U.S. until FSIS determines that the country's requirements and inspection program for the products are equivalent to FSIS's system.

    In addition, FSIS will conduct other types of re-inspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis for the detections of drug and chemical residues, pathogens, species, and product composition. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official United States mark of inspection and allowed to enter United States commerce. If they do not meet United States requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days must be exported to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), depending on the violation. The import re-inspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/phis-import-component/phis-implementation-letter-to-importers/ct_index.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

    Economic Impact Analysis for Namibia Export Equivalence

    This proposed rule would add Namibia to the list of countries eligible to export meat products into the United States. The government of Namibia intends to certify only one Namibian establishment as eligible to export boneless raw beef products to the United States. Given this establishment's beef production capacity and the projected export volume, FSIS projects that this rule, if implemented, will not have an impact on the United States economy. The annual boneless beef production of this establishment averaged 21.4 million pounds from 2008 to 2014. The projected volume of export to the United States is about 1.9 million pounds in 2015, increasing to about 12.5 million pounds in 2019.1 The average annual United States domestic beef production in 2012-2014 was 25.3 billion pounds, projected to be 24.2 billion pounds in 2015.2 The total United States import of beef averages 2.47 billion pounds per year for 2012-2014, projected to be 2.91 billion pounds in 2015.3 Therefore, the projected Namibia beef imports in 2015 would only be about 0.007% of total U.S. production and 0.07% of total U.S. imports. If Namibia achieves the projected export goal in 2019 and assuming that United States beef production and import volume stay about the same, the projected beef imports from Namibia would still only be about 0.05% of total U.S. production, and 0.5% of total U.S. imports.

    1 According to Namibia, this is the “optimistic” projection they wish to achieve. Market conditions will affect actual results.

    2http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1823699/rmpfore_apr-2015_r.xls, accessed on May 8, 2015; part of Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry Outlook at Economic Research Service, USDA.

    3Ibid.

    Although Namibia indicates that, for now, it is seeking to export boneless beef products only, this would not preclude it from exporting other meat products in the future, provided that the products meet all FSIS and APHIS requirements and any additional requirements that FSIS might have in place with regard to the products. Therefore, the long-term economic impact could be larger than what we can assess right now.

    Effect on Small Entities

    The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). As mentioned above, the expected trade volume is very small. Therefore, the proposed action should have no significant impact on small entities that produce beef products domestically.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

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

    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 system provides 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 Namibia 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 0583-0094. 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 proposal and will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Proposed_Rules/index.asp.

    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 Non-Discrimination Statement

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

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

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

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410. Fax: (202) 690-7442. Email: [email protected]

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

    List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 327

    Imports, Meat Inspection.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 327 as follows:

    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 by adding Namibia in alphabetical order to the list of countries in paragraph (b). Done at Washington, DC, on September 14, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23455 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3631; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-060-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 certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of chafed wiring at the upper left corner of the cockpit door. The affected wire bundle was not grounded on the cockpit door frame. This proposed AD would require modifying the cockpit door frame structure, installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame, and modifying the upper cockpit door plate cover. We are proposing this AD to prevent electrical shock injury to persons contacting the cockpit door.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 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. 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-2015-3631; 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-2015-3631; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-060-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 2015-0037, dated March 2, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An operator has reported chafed wiring at the upper left corner of the cockpit door. The investigation concluded that the affected wire bundle, which supplies a voltage of 115V [volt] AC [alternating current], was not grounded on the cockpit door frame as part of the design of A330 and A340 aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury [electrical shock], in case any person gets in contact with the door frame.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB [service bulletin] A330-25-3534, SB A340-25-4349 and SB A340-25-5212 to provide instructions to modify the electrical bonding of the cockpit door.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the cockpit door frame structure, installation of bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame and modification of the upper cockpit door plate cover.

    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-2015-3631.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.

    • Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.

    • Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the cockpit door frame structure and installing bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame.

    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.

    Explanation of “RC” Procedures and Tests in Service Information

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

    As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 27 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,620 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $344,050, or $4,915 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-3631; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-060-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 2, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 203066, Modification 203074, or Modification 203372 has been embodied in production.

    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs); if modified in-service as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3161, or in production with Airbus Modification 50014.

    (2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; all MSNs, if modified in-service as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4181, or in production with Airbus Modification 50014.

    (3) Model A340-541 airplanes; and Model A340-642 airplanes; all MSNs.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of chafed wiring at the upper left corner of the cockpit door. The affected wire bundle was not grounded on the cockpit door frame. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical shock injury to persons contacting the cockpit door.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Door Modification and Installation

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the cockpit door frame structure and install bonding-leads to the upper cockpit door frame, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2014. (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014.

    (h) Cover Plate Modification of the Upper Flight Deck Door

    Except for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 52869 or Modification 53292 has been embodied in production: Before or concurrently with accomplishing the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, modify the upper cockpit door plate cover, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3534, Revision 01, dated October 23, 2014. (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-4349, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014. (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-25-5212, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2014.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager International Branch, ANM-116, 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0037, dated March 2, 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-2015-3631.

    (2) For service information identified in this 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. 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 September 11, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23409 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0774; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-154-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) that proposed to supersede AD 2006-22-15 for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2006-22-15 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain panel webs and stiffeners of the nose wheel well (NWW), and corrective actions if necessary; and replacement of certain panels with new panels, which terminates the repetitive inspections. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to reduce a compliance time and add certain inspections and applicable repair. The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW found prior to the inspection threshold of AD 2006-22-15. This action revises the NPRM by specifying a repetitive inspection interval for a certain NWW area inspection. We are proposing this SNPRM to prevent fatigue cracking of the NWW side and top panels, which could result in a NWW depressurization event severe enough to reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0774.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0774; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0774; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-154-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006). AD 2006-22-15 applies to all Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68388). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW found prior to the inspection threshold of AD 2006-22-15. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of certain panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require replacing certain panels with new panels, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. The NPRM proposed to reduce a compliance time and add certain inspections and applicable repair.

    Actions Since Previous NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014), we have determined that it is necessary to revise the NPRM by specifying a certain repetitive inspection interval for Area 2 for airplanes with less than 15,000 total flight cycles. This interval is not clearly indicated in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, and was not specifically stated in the NPRM.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Boeing service information. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, which describes procedures for inspections for cracks of certain top and sidewall panel webs and stiffeners of the NWW; and repairs.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacement of the side and top panel webs and certain stiffeners of the NWW; an inspection for cracks in attaching structural elements that are common to the removed top panel and side panels; repetitive post-modification inspections for cracks in the top and side panel webs and stiffeners; and contacting Boeing for repairs.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacement of the side and top panel webs, support beams, and stiffeners of the NWW; an inspection for cracks of the attaching structural elements that are common to the removed top and side panels of the NWW; repetitive post-modification inspections for cracks in the top and side panel webs and stiffeners; and contacting Boeing for repairs.

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

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Requests To Specify Repetitive Inspection Interval for Area 2

    United Airlines (UAL) and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we specify the repetitive inspection interval for Area 2 for airplanes with less than 15,000 total flight cycles. The commenters point out that this is not clearly indicated in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, and was not specifically stated in the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). The commenters stated that Boeing has issued a service bulletin information notice to inform operators that the repetitive inspection interval for Area 2 should be 1,000 flight cycles.

    We agree with the commenters' requests to specify the repeat interval for Area 2. We have revised paragraph (g) of this SNPRM to specify this interval.

    Request To Specify Repair Procedures

    UAL asked whether paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) should be revised to specify repair requirements for each area, instead of contacting the FAA or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) for repair instructions for any cracking or damage found during the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. UAL explained that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, specifies repairing web cracks in Area 1 or 2 per the “747 Structural Repair Manuals.”

    We agree to provide clarification. The intent of paragraph (h)(3) of this SNPRM is to make sure that for those conditions for which Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, specifies that the operator is to contact Boeing for repair data, the operator would be required to use a repair method approved by the FAA or Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

    Request To Clarify Certain Compliance Times

    UAL requested clarification of why the footnotes in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, reverted back to 6,000 flight cycles for Area 3 inspections for cracks of the sidewall panel and top panel stiffeners. UAL also asked why the 6,000-flight-cycle time is just for the first repeat inspection and then Area 3 has to be reinspected every 1,500 flight cycles thereafter.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), specifies the 6,000-flight-cycle and 1,500-flight-cycle inspection times. Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, states that inspections and corrective actions defined therein are an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of AD 2006-22-15. In order to be approved as an AMOC to certain requirements of AD 2006-22-15, Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, must state the compliance times required by AD 2006-22-15 to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

    Request To Revise Certain Headers To Clarify Intent of Requirements

    Boeing requested that we revise the heading of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) to either change “Repetitive Inspections” to “Initial and Repetitive Inspections” or delete “Repetitive.” Boeing stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD contains both initial and repetitive inspections.

    Boeing requested that we delete “Repetitive” from the headings of paragraphs (j) and (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). Boeing stated that paragraphs (j) and (m) of the proposed AD specify not only repetitive inspections, but also the initial post-modification inspections.

    We agree that clarification is necessary. We do not consider that the term “repetitive” necessarily excludes the initial action. An action cannot be repeated without accomplishment of the initial action. Many existing ADs refer to “repetitive” actions, which we intend as including the initial action. In addition, changing “Repetitive Inspections” to simply “Inspections” could result in the misinterpretation that multiple different inspections are required. We have not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

    Request To Clarify Inspection Location

    Boeing requested that, at the end of paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014), we add “of the NWW (specified as Area 1 and Area 2 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013)” for the ultrasonic inspection.

    We agree with the commenter's request. This revision will make the wording in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD consistent with the wording of each of the areas specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD accordingly.

    Request To Add New AMOC Limitation

    Boeing requested that we add a new paragraph (p)(6) to the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014), which would state that “New provisions (inspection threshold and interval) in this AD must be complied with as given in this AD.” Boeing stated that this statement will make it clear that prior AMOCs do not exempt the operators from compliance with new requirements added by this new proposed AD. Boeing also stated that the wording of “corresponding provisions” in paragraph (p)(4) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) might not be precise enough, when ADs get superseded and paragraphs change. Boeing explained that adding this statement will reduce the ambiguity of paragraphs (o) and (p) of the proposed AD.

    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (p)(4) of this proposed AD to state that AMOC actions approved previously for AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding actions of this AD. The compliance times in AMOCs approved previously for AD 2006-22-15 are not approved for the corresponding actions and compliance times in this AD. We have removed paragraph (p)(5) of this proposed AD as it is no longer necessary. We consider this language to be sufficiently clear. Adding the commenter's requested language would be redundant to the language specified in revised paragraph (p)(4) of this proposed AD.

    Requests for Certain Editorial Changes

    Boeing noted that paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) incorrectly referred to paragraphs “(l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3).” Boeing asked that we change these references to “(m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3).”

    Boeing requested that we correct the AD citation in paragraph (o)(1)(i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). Boeing stated that the identified effective date of January 27, 2005, is for AD 2004-25-23, Amendment 39-13911 (69 FR 76839, December 23, 2004); not AD 2005-09-02, Amendment 39-14070 (70 FR 21141, April 25, 2005; corrected May 25, 2005, 70 FR 29940)); as stated in the NPRM.

    Boeing requested that we correct the date of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 4, from February 25, 2004, to February 24, 2005, in paragraph (o)(2) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014).

    UPS requested that we revise paragraph (p)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014) to correct the paragraph identifier for the contact person, which should be paragraph “(q)(1).”

    We agree with the requests and have revised this SNPRM accordingly.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (79 FR 68388, November 17, 2014). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate certain requirements of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2006-22-15.

    The requirements specified in paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (l) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), are referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraphs (g) and (h)(3) of this proposed AD.

    The requirement specified in paragraph (n) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), is referenced in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD.

    For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005, and certain airplanes not identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005, the requirement specified in paragraph (o) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), to accomplish a repair using a method approved by the FAA is now specified in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. However, for these airplanes, one method of compliance for accomplishing the replacement is Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013. Therefore, we have referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, in paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. Operators may still request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures provided in paragraph (p) of this AD.

    For certain other airplanes not identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005, the requirement specified in paragraph (o) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), to accomplish a repair using a method approved by the FAA is now specified in paragraph (l) of this proposed AD. However, for these airplanes, one method of compliance for accomplishing the replacement is Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012. Therefore, we have referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012, in paragraph (l) of this proposed AD. Operators may still request an AMOC using the procedures provided in paragraph (p) of this AD.

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

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

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

    Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    For airplanes with fewer than 15,000 total flight cycles, Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, recommends, in part, accomplishing a detailed inspection before the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles. However, we have determined that the 13,000-total-flight-cycle compliance time is insufficient to address the identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. Instead, we are proposing a compliance time of 10,000 total flight cycles. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this detailed inspection, we considered the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the fact that we have received a report of a 13-inch crack adjacent to a 2-inch crack in the NWW right-hand side panel on an airplane with 11,428 total flight cycles. This difference has been coordinated with The Boeing Company.

    Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013; Boeing Service Bulletin 747 53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012; specify to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

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

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in paragraphs (i) and (l) of this proposed AD for addressing widespread fatigue damage (WFD) was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 255 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections [actions retained from AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006)] 119 work-hours × $85 per hour = $10,115 per inspection cycle $0 $10,115 per inspection cycle $2,579,325 per inspection cycle. Modification [actions retained from AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006)] Up to 1,346 work-hours × $85 per hour = $114,410 Up to $144,248 Up to $258,658 Up to $65,957,790. Post-modification Inspections [new proposed action] 119 work-hours × $85 per hour = $10,115 per inspection cycle $0 $10,115 per inspection cycle $2,579,325 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0774; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-154-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 2, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracking in the nose wheel well (NWW) top panel and side panel webs and stiffeners caused by fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the NWW side and top panels, which could result in a NWW depressurization event severe enough to reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions With New Compliance Times

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013. The repetitive interval for the inspection of Area 2 specified in table 1 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, is 1,000 flight cycles. In table 2 and table 3 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, the date “January 27, 2005” is the effective date of AD 2004-25-23, Amendment 39-13911 (69 FR 76839, December 23, 2004); and the date “May 10, 2005” is the effective date of AD 2005-09-02, Amendment 39-14070 (70 FR 21141, April 25, 2005; corrected May 25, 2005 (70 FR 29940)).

    (1) Do an external detailed inspection for cracks of the top and sidewall panel webs of the NWW (specified as Area 1 and Area 2 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013).

    (2) Do internal detailed and surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks of the sidewall panel and top panel stiffeners of the NWW (specified as Area 3 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013).

    (3) Do an external detailed and ultrasonic testing (UT) inspection for cracks of the top and sidewall panel webs of the NWW (specified as Area 1 and Area 2 in Boeing Service Bulletin 747 -53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013).

    (h) Exceptions to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013

    (1) Table 1 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, applies to airplanes with less than 15,000 total flight cycles “as of the Revision 5 date of this service bulletin.” For this AD, however, table 1 applies to airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Table 1 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, specifies a compliance time of “13,000 total flight-cycles,” or “within 1,000 flights cycles after the Revision 5 date of this service bulletin,” whichever occurs later. This AD requires compliance before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (3) If any cracking or damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 5, dated July 11, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking or damage using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.

    (i) NWW Modification

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, replace the left-side, right-side, and top panels of the NWW, as applicable, with new panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, concurrently with doing the replacement specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, do a detailed inspection for any cracks or damage (including, but not limited to, dents and corrosion) in all attaching structural elements that are common to the removed top panel and side panels, as applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013. If any crack or damage is found, before further flight, repair the cracking or damage using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. In paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, the date “December 11, 2006,” is the effective date of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006).

    (j) Repetitive Post-Modification Inspections

    For airplanes on which the replacement specified in paragraph (i) of this AD has been done: Except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD. If any crack is found: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013.

    (1) Do an external detailed inspection for cracks in the side panel webs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013.

    (2) Do an internal detailed inspection and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks in the top and side panel stiffeners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013.

    (3) Do an external detailed inspection for cracks in the top panel web, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013.

    (k) Exception to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, Dated July 11, 2013

    Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 3, dated July 11, 2013, specifies a compliance time relative to the “Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (l) NWW Modification for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012, replace the left side, right side, and top panels of the NWW, as applicable, with new panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012. Concurrently with doing the replacement specified in this paragraph, do a detailed inspection for cracks of the attaching structural elements that are common to the removed top, left-side, and right-side panels of the NWW, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.

    (m) Repetitive Post-Modification Inspections for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes on which the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD has been done: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012, do the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD. If any crack is found: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012.

    (1) Do an external detailed inspection for cracks in the side panel webs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012.

    (2) Do an internal detailed inspection and HFEC inspection for cracks in the top and side panel stiffeners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012.

    (3) Do an external detailed inspection for cracks in the top panel web, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2808, dated November 30, 2012.

    (n) Terminating Action for Certain Repetitive Inspections

    Replacing the left side, right side, and top panels of the NWW with new panels as specified in paragraph (i) or (l) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the credit given in paragraph (k) of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006).

    (i) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before January 27, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2004-25-23, Amendment 39-13911 (69 FR 76839, December 23, 2004)), using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, dated April 5, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (ii) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 11, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006)), using a service bulletin identified in paragraph (o)(1)(ii)(A), (o)(1)(ii)(B), or (o)(1)(ii)(C) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (A) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2003.

    (B) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 2, dated November 11, 2004.

    (C) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 3, dated December 23, 2004.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2465, Revision 4, dated February 24, 2005, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2562, Revision 2, dated May 31, 2007; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (p) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) AMOC actions approved previously for AD 2006-22-15, Amendment 39-14812 (71 FR 64884, November 6, 2006), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding actions of this AD. The compliance times in AMOCs approved previously for AD 2006-22-15 are not approved for the corresponding actions and compliance times in this AD.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 1, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23420 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3633; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-097-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. 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 Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design review conducted by Fokker Services B.V. that indicated no controlled bonding provisions were present on many critical locations outside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall. This proposed AD would require installing the additional bonding provisions, and revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. We are proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3633; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3633; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0100, dated April 30, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 [(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001)], and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12.

    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker 27 design in response to these regulations revealed that no controlled bonding provisions are present on a number of critical locations outside the fuel tanks.

    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source in the fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services developed a set of bonding modifications, introduced with [a service bulletin] * * *, that do[es] not require opening of the fuel tank access panels.

    More information on this subject can be found in Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF27.043#03.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires installation of additional bonding provisions that do not require opening of the fuel tank access panels.

    Required actions also include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design configuration control limitations. 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-2015-3633.

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

    Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.

    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued F27 Proforma Service Bulletin SBF27-28-072, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2014, including Fokker F27 Service Bulletin Appendix SBF27-28-072/APP01, including List of Drawings/Part Lists, dated July 17, 2014; and Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation (MCNM) F27-027 dated September 9, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing additional bonding provisions. 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 this same type design.

    This proposed AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, an operator might not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,200, or $680 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2015-3633; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-097-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 2, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review conducted by Fokker Services B.V. that indicated no controlled bonding provisions were present on many critical locations outside the fuel tank or connected to the fuel tank wall. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source in the fuel tank vapor space, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install additional bonding provisions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker F27 Proforma Service Bulletin SBF27-28-072, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2014, including Fokker F27 Service Bulletin Appendix SBF27-28-072/APP01, including List of Drawings/Part Lists, dated July 17, 2014.

    (h) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    At the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Revise the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitations items and critical design configuration control limitations as identified in Fokker Manual Change Notification—Maintenance Documentation (MCNM) F27-027 dated September 9, 2014.

    (1) Before further flight after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD,

    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425 227-1149 Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0100, dated April 30, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3633.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 11, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23408 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-127895-14] RIN 1545-BM33 Dividend Equivalents From Sources Within the United States AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments must be received by December 17, 2015. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for January 15, 2016, at 10 a.m. must be received by December 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-127895-14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-127895-14), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20044, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-127895-14). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the regulations, D. Peter Merkel or Karen Walny at (202) 317-6938; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Oluwfunmilayo Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Explanation of Provisions

    Final and temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register contain amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) which provide rules for determining when a payment made pursuant to certain financial products will be treated as a dividend equivalent for purposes of section 871(m). These proposed regulations provide guidance relating to the substantial equivalence test, which is used to determine whether a complex contract is a section 871(m) transaction. These proposed regulations also provide guidance to qualified derivatives dealers. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the final and temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. The regulations affect nonresident alien individuals, foreign corporations, and withholding agents.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    A public hearing has been scheduled for January 15, 2016, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by December 17, 2015. Submit a signed paper or electronic copy of the outline as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are D. Peter Merkel and Karen Walny of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    § 1.871-15 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 871(m). * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.871-15 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi) and paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 1.871-15 Treatment of dividend equivalents.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iv) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(c)(2)(iv) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(c)(2)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (h) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(h) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(h) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (q) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.871-15(q) is the same as the text of § 1.871-15T(q) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    Par. 3. Section 1.1441-1 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(vii) and paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
    § 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

    (e) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (E) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii)(E) is the same as the text of § 1.1441-1T(e)(3)(ii)(E) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (5) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.1441-1(e)(5) is the same as the text of § 1.1441-1T(e)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    (6) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.1441-1(e)(6) is the same as the text of § 1.1441-1T(e)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.]

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-21753 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 7 and 75 [Docket No. MSHA-2013-0033] RIN 1219-AB79 Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; reopening of record.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will hold a public meeting to gather information on issues and options relevant to miners' escape and refuge. This meeting will supplement the information already received in response to the Agency's Request for Information on Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines. This meeting provides coal mine operators, coal miners, manufacturers, academia and other interested stakeholders an opportunity to provide information concerning two critical issues: Impediments to the use of built-in-place refuges and enhanced two-way voice communication when using escape breathing devices. This meeting also invites stakeholders to provide input on the current state of refuges in use and recent research and new technology that may lead to the development of a new generation of refuges. MSHA also is reopening the record for public comment.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on October 19, 2015. All written submissions or responses for the record, including relevant data and information, must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at MSHA's National Mine Health and Safety Academy, 1301 Airport Road, Beaver, West Virginia 25813-9426.

    Requests to speak or make a presentation at the meeting may be made to Leah Davis at 202-693-9440 or by one of the following methods:

    Fax: 202-693-9441.

    Electronic Mail: [email protected]

    Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.

    Instructions: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AB79 or Docket No. MSHA-2013-0033. Do not include personal information that you do not want publicly disclosed; MSHA will post all submissions without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    For additional instructions for participation in the public meeting, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. To read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Review the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk in Suite 4E401.

    Email Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification when MSHA publishes rules, program information, instructions, or policy, in the Federal Register, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Meeting

    MSHA invites coal mine operators, coal miners, equipment manufacturers, academia, and the public to provide information on the current state of refuge alternatives, particularly on the challenges related to the use of built-in-place refuges, and enhancing voice communication when using escape breathing devices. MSHA especially invites coal miners and operators of small underground coal mines to participate.

    The information from this meeting will supplement comments to the Agency's Request for Information and research from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This meeting will focus on four primary issues: Challenges related to built-in-place refuges; miners communicating while using breathing devices during escape; advantages and disadvantages of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with refill stations as an escape strategy; and the scope and status of new technology or recent research related to the installation and use of built-in-place refuges.

    The public meeting will be held in the auditorium at MSHA's National Mine Health and Safety Academy on October 19, 2015, beginning with Registration at 1 p.m. and concluding at 5 p.m. or when the last speaker has spoken.

    The meeting will be conducted in an informal manner. Presenters and attendees may provide written information to the court reporter for inclusion in the rulemaking record. MSHA will make the transcript of the meeting available on www.regulations.gov and on the Agency's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/tscripts.htm and include it in the rulemaking record.

    II. Background

    Continued development of refuge equipment and technology is expected to enhance the effectiveness of refuges and improve miners' chances of surviving a mine emergency when escape is impossible. Since the refuge alternatives rule became effective on March 2, 2009, stakeholders have gained experience, and research has led to some technological advancements and innovations. To benefit from this experience and research, on August 8, 2013, MSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register (78 FR 48593) asking for data, comments, and information on issues and options that may present alternative or even more effective solutions for miners' survival during underground coal mine emergencies than the protections provided by the existing rule.

    In response to requests, MSHA extended the comment period four times to give interested parties additional time to review research reports from NIOSH and other relevant information and provide substantive comments. The comment period closed on April 2, 2015.

    III. Questions and Issues for Discussion A. Built-In-Place Refuge Alternatives

    In its report, “Facilitating the Use of Built-In-Place Refuge Alternatives in Mines,” RI 9698, NIOSH makes recommendations on the use of built-in-place shelters, as a type of refuge with a superior environment when compared to tent and steel pre-fabricated structures. The report addresses three issues: (1) Locating built-in-place refuges further from the face than the 1,000-foot limit required under the existing standard; (2) providing a consistent process for the design and approval of refuge stoppings; and (3) delivering a reliable supply of clean, breathable air to a built-in-place refuge. NIOSH recommends allowing operators to locate built-in-place refuges further than 1,000 feet from the face, but only if the refuges:

    • Provide a constant supply of air into the refuge via either a protected compressed air line or a borehole from the surface.

    • Provide a minimum of 85 cubic feet of space per occupant.

    • Maintain the interior of the refuge under positive pressure when not in use to ensure that the refuge contains breathable air immediately on entry and to keep contaminated air from entering the refuge when miners enter.

    MSHA invites comments and information on the following issues:

    1. How would MSHA's acceptance of built-in-place refuges located further from the face and meeting the above criteria affect your decision on whether or not to install a built-in-place refuge? Discuss the relative merits of location versus design and performance. Please comment on the advantages and disadvantages of NIOSH's recommended approach for built-in-place refuges; the feasibility of installing built-in-place shelters in different mine settings; the risks related to a refuge location that is further away from the working face; and the benefits of a built-in-place refuge's environment and performance characteristics.

    2. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the following methods of providing breathable air in refuges: Using supplied air from the surface versus using air from cylinders stored underground; or delivering surface-supplied air through a borehole directly into a built-in-place refuge versus compressed air lines run through the mine.

    3. Discuss options for piping air over several miles through a mine to provide a clean air supply and sufficient air pressure to a built-in-place refuge when a borehole directly into the refuge is unavailable. What issues remain to be addressed for the protection of piping used to provide compressed air to a refuge?

    4. What are the risks and benefits to miners' safety, if any, if a constant air supply from the surface is provided to a refuge and exhausted from the refuge into the mine, as opposed to exhausting to the surface?

    5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using SCBAs with refill stations as compared to using SCSRs with caches in escapeways?

    6. Discuss and describe new and improved technology for built-in-place refuges' designs. What is the impact of these designs on the cost of built-in-place refuges? For example, would a moveable wall or other modular design make the use of a built-in-place refuge more feasible and economical?

    B. Miners' Ability To Communicate During Escape

    Miners' ability to communicate with each other can be critical during mine emergencies. Under existing rules, miners use self-contained self-rescue (SCSR) escape respirators that have a mouthpiece. A self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) has a full-face respirator mask. Miners must remove the mouthpiece of an SCSR to speak, or remove the full-face respirator mask of an SCBA to communicate clearly. These actions expose miners to deadly gases in the mine atmosphere.

    7. Discuss the challenges associated with providing two-way communication when using escape SCBAs or SCSRs. What technologies, such as voice amplifiers or wireless communication systems, are available for escape SCBAs or SCSRs that can enhance voice communication among miners?

    8. Discuss how this technology can be integrated with a mine's two-way post-accident communication system.

    MSHA will accept written responses, data, and information for the record from any interested party, including those not participating in the public meeting, through November 16, 2015.

    Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23448 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904; FRL-9934-26-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; TN; Reasonably Available Control Measures and Redesignation for the TN Portion of the Chattanooga 1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; supplemental.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing two separate but related actions pertaining to the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga nonattainment area for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (hereinafter referred to as the “Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area” or “Area”). First, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the attainment plan state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on October 15, 2009, that addresses reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), for the Tennessee portion of the Area. EPA is not proposing to act on the portions of the SIP revision that are unrelated to RACM. Second, EPA is supplementing the Agency's March 27, 2015, proposed approval of Tennessee's November 13, 2014, redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Area by proposing that approval of the RACM portion of the aforementioned SIP revision satisfies the applicable RACM requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904,” Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joel Huey, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey's phone number is (404) 562-9104. He can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) and a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 (based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations). See 62 FR 36852. On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated Hamilton County in Tennessee, in association with counties in Alabama and Georgia in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively. Designation of an area as nonattainment for PM2.5 starts the process for a state to develop and submit to EPA an attainment plan SIP revision under title I, part D of the CAA. This SIP revision must include, among other elements, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.

    EPA designated all 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas under title I, part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter “Subpart 1”). Subpart 1 contains the general requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I, part D. On April 25, 2007, EPA promulgated a rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Subpart 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule”).1 See 72 FR 20586. On October 15, 2009, Tennessee submitted an attainment plan SIP revision pursuant to Subpart 1 and the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule that addressed RACM and contained a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, base-year and attainment-year emissions inventories, and contingency measures for the Area.

    1 On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions of Subpart 1 rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of title I, part D, subpart 4. The court remanded both the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the final rule entitled “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) to EPA to address this error.

    On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31239), EPA published a final determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area had attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 time period. In that determination and in accordance with the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA suspended the requirements for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.2231(c); 76 FR 31239.

    Tennessee submitted a request to EPA on November 13, 2014, to redesignate the State's portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve a SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Area. EPA proposed to approve the redesignation request and the related SIP revision in an action signed on March 11, 2015, based, in part, on the Agency's longstanding interpretation that Subpart 1 nonattainment planning requirements, including RACM, are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) once an area is attaining the NAAQS and, therefore, need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. See 80 FR 16331 (March 27, 2015).

    On March 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015), that is inconsistent with this longstanding interpretation regarding section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In its decision, the Court vacated EPA's redesignation of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA had not yet approved Subpart 1 RACM for the Cincinnati Area into the Indiana and Ohio SIPs.2 The Court concluded that “a State seeking redesignation `shall provide for the implementation' of RACM/RACT, even if those measures are not strictly necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS . . . . If a State has not done so, EPA cannot `fully approve[]' the area's SIP, and redesignation to attainment status is improper.” Sierra Club, 781 F.3d at 313.

    2 The Court issued an amended decision on July 14, 2015, revising some of the legal aspects of the Court's analysis of the relevant statutory provisions (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and section 172(c)(1)) but maintaining its prior holding that section 172(c)(1) “unambiguously requires implementation of RACM/RACT prior to redesignation . . . even if those measures are not strictly necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.” See Sierra Club v. EPA, Nos. 12-3169, 12-3182, 12-3420 (6th Cir. July 14, 2015).

    II. What are EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA within the Court's jurisdiction unless it is overturned.3 Although EPA continues to believe that Subpart 1 RACM is not an applicable requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E) for an area that has already attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing two separate but related actions regarding the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in response to the Court's decision.4 5

    3 The states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee are located within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction.

    4 Pursuant to 40 CFR 56.5(b), the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator signed a memorandum on July 20, 2015, seeking concurrence from the Director of EPA's Air Quality Policy Division (AQPD) in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to act inconsistent with EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 172(c)(1) when taking action on pending and future redesignation requests in Kentucky and Tennessee because the Region is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. The AQPD Director issued her concurrence on July 22, 2015. The July 20, 2015, memorandum with AQPD concurrence is located in the docket for today's proposed actions.

    5 On September 3, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing en banc of this portion of its opinion that were filed by EPA, the state of Ohio, and industry groups from Ohio. Sierra Club v. EPA, Nos. 12-3169, 12-3182, 12-3420, Doc. 136-1 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2015).

    First, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the State's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses RACM under Subpart 1 for the Tennessee portion of the Area. Second, EPA is supplementing the Agency's proposed approval of Tennessee's November 13, 2014, redesignation request for the Area by proposing that approval of the RACM portion of the aforementioned SIP revision satisfies the Subpart 1 RACM requirement in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. More detail on EPA's rationale for these proposed actions is provided below.

    III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's RACM submittal? a. Subpart 1 RACM Requirements

    Subpart 1 requires that each attainment plan “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” See CAA section 172(c)(1). EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172(c)(1) as measures that are both reasonably available and necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.1010(a).6 A state must adopt, as RACM, measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b).

    6 Subpart 1 RACM requirements at 40 CFR 51.1010 were not at issue in the D.C. Circuit's remand of the PM2.5 implementation rule in the January 2013 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA decision and are therefore not subject to the Court's remand. Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252-53 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding a substantially similar interpretation of Subpart 1 RACM in the context of ozone implementation regulations).

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that the Subpart 1 RACM portion of the attainment plan SIP revision include the list of potential measures that a state considered and information sufficient to show that the state met all requirements for the determination of what constitutes RACM in a specific nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.1010(a). Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state's implementation plan, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan SIP revision for the area. As discussed above, an attainment determination suspends the requirement for a PM2.5 nonattainment area to submit an attainment plan SIP revision so long as the area continues to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).

    b. Proposed Action on RACM Based Upon Attainment of the NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the State's portion of the Area on the basis that the Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, no emission reduction measures are necessary to satisfy Subpart 1 RACM. As noted above, EPA has determined that the Area has attaining data for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and met the standard by the April 5, 2010, attainment date. See 77 FR 31239. Because the Area has attained the standard, there are no emissions controls that could advance the attainment date; thus, no emissions controls are necessary to satisfy Subpart 1 RACM pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1010 (defining RACM as the level of control necessary to advance the attainment date by one year or more).

    c. Proposed Action on RACM Based Upon the State's Control Evaluation

    Additionally, the portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the State's portion of the Area is approvable on the basis that the SIP revision demonstrates that no additional reasonably available controls would have advanced the attainment date projected therein.

    Through participation in the regional planning efforts of the Visibility Improvement States and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning (ASIP), Tennessee determined that existing measures and measures planned for implementation by 2009 would result in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2009. Air quality modeling conducted by ASIP indicated that the Area would attain the annual NAAQS in 2009 based upon projected emissions reductions from sources within the Area after 2002 (the base year of the nonattainment emissions inventory). As discussed in Chapter 2.0 of the October 15, 2009, SIP revision, the State, in consultation with VISTAS and ASIP, considered the following existing federally enforceable measures in projecting the emissions inventory used for the 2009 modeling: Tier 2 vehicle standards; heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards; large nonroad diesel engine standards; nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards; NOX SIP call; and the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

    In Tennessee's RACM analysis, which appears in chapter 4.0 of the October 15, 2009, SIP revision, the State discusses its evaluation of sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within the Tennessee portion of the Area and its determination that these sources were meeting Subpart 1 RACM levels of emissions control. As discussed above, a State must show that all Subpart 1 RACM (including RACT for stationary sources) necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable have been adopted and must consider the cumulative impact of implementing available measures to determine whether a particular emission reduction measure or set of measures is required to be adopted as RACM. Potential measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more. Because the attainment demonstration in Tennessee's attainment plan SIP revision showed attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area by the end of 2009, only measures that would advance the attainment date to the end of 2008 would be considered as Subpart 1 RACM.7

    7 As noted in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, if a “State could not achieve significant emissions reductions by the beginning of 2008 due to time needed to implement reasonable measures or other factors, then it could be concluded that reasonably available local measures would not advance the attainment date.” See 72 FR 20617.

    Based on the emissions inventory and other information, the State identified the categories of sources that should be evaluated for controls. These categories include permitted stationary sources; gasoline dispensing facilities; on-road mobile sources; non-road and stationary internal combustion engines; open burning; and home heating with wood.

    With regard to permitted stationary sources, Tennessee noted that conservative sensitivity modeling, conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology, showed that completely eliminating emissions of PM2.5, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide from non-utility point sources in the Tennessee portion of the Area would result in only small reductions in PM2.5 concentrations (0.06 μg/m3 to 0.25 μg/m3). Nevertheless, Tennessee performed a detailed analysis of each major source operating in the State's portion of the Area and determined that RACT levels of emission control were already in place.8 This analysis, and the results of sensitivity modeling, indicated that no additional reductions were available from local permitted stationary sources that would result in attainment in 2008 rather than 2009. For gasoline dispensing facilities, Tennessee deemed the use of Stage 1 vapor recovery to be the RACT level of emissions control. Tennessee stated that the existing federally-approved inspection and maintenance program constitutes RACM for on-road mobile sources and that non-road mobile sources and stationary internal combustion engines are regulated by Federal rules. Regarding open burning, Chattanooga's federally-approved local implementation plan requires open burning permits, bans open burning from May 1 through September 30, and prohibits the burning of brush cleared for road building and trash in the Tennessee portion of the Area. The State also determined that only 712 households (0.6 percent of the total households in the Tennessee portion of the Area) were heating primarily with wood and that accelerated replacement of older wood burning stoves would not advance the attainment date given the “small portion of households using wood hearing, the mild local climate, and the normal purchases of Subpart AAA compliant wood burning stoves in the nonattainment area.”

    8 See Appendix 12 of the SIP submittal for a detailed discussion of the State's analysis.

    Through this evaluation, Tennessee determined that, for each category of potential measures, there were either no additional emission reductions that could be achieved or no emission reduction measures that could be practicably implemented in time to advance attainment to the end of 2008. EPA has reviewed the RACM portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision and agrees with the State's conclusion that no additional emissions reductions were available from local sources that would have advanced the projected 2009 attainment date.

    IV. Why is EPA supplementing its proposed redesignation of the area?

    EPA's March 11, 2015, proposal to approve Tennessee's redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Area was based, in part, on the Agency's longstanding interpretation that Subpart 1 RACM need not be approved into a SIP before redesignation to attainment if the subject area is attaining the NAAQS. See 80 FR 16331. Although EPA disagrees with the portion of the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA that is inconsistent with this interpretation, the Agency is bound by this decision within the Court's jurisdiction unless it is overturned and must first approve Subpart 1 RACM into Tennessee's SIP before it can redesignate the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment. Therefore, EPA is supplementing its redesignation proposal to now rely on approval of the RACM portion of the State's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision.

    V. Proposed Actions

    EPA has reviewed the RACM portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision and proposes to approve it on the basis that it is consistent with the CAA, the CAA's implementing regulations, and EPA guidance for attainment demonstration submittals. EPA is also supplementing its March 27, 2015, proposed approval of the State's November 13, 2014, redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area by proposing that approval of the RACM portion of the aforementioned SIP revision satisfies the Subpart 1 RACM requirement in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Today's proposed actions are focused solely on addressing the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA and do not reopen any other aspect of the March 27, 2015, proposal for comment.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 9, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23382 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0514; FRL-9933-96-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Sewage Sludge Incinerators AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the state plan for designated facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act for the State of Missouri. This proposed action will amend the state plan to include a new plan and associated rule implementing the emissions guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0514, by mail to Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7028 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 3, 2015. Becky Weber, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23384 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15, 73, and 74 [MB Docket No. 15-146; GN Docket No. 12-268; DA 15-918] Preserving Vacant Channels in the UHF Television Band for Unlicensed Use AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) provides notice of the revised comment and reply comment deadlines in this proceeding. The comment period in this proceeding has previously been suspended pending action in the Commission's incentive auction proceeding and the Media Bureau announces that it has been restarted and the new deadlines for filing comments and reply comments.

    DATES:

    Comments Due: September 30, 2015. Reply Comments Due: October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 15-146 and GN Docket No. 12-268, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail.) All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaun Maher, [email protected] of the Media Bureau, Video Division, (202) 418-2324, and Paul Murray, [email protected] of the Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-0688.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Media Bureau's Order, DA 15-918, adopted August 12, 2015, in MB Docket No. 15-146 (Order). The full text of the Order is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554. This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    Synopsis

    1. On June 16, 2015, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 6711 (2015) in MB Docket No. 15-146 (Vacant Channel NPRM) seeking comment on rules to preserve vacant television channels for shared use by white space devices and wireless microphones. On July 29, 2015, the Media Bureau, in an Order, DA 15-867, on delegated authority, suspended the comment and reply comment deadlines in this proceeding until further notice.

    2. In its document, FCC 15-78, released August 11, 2015 (Auctions Procedures PN), the Commission adopted its proposal to allow the optimization tool to assign television stations within the 600 MHz Band where necessary to accommodate market variation in a manner that best fulfills the clearing target objectives, and not to restrict it to assignments in specific portions of the 600 MHz Band, including the duplex gap. To mitigate the potential impact on white space devices and wireless microphones in areas where the duplex gap is subject to impairment, the Commission tentatively concluded that it will designate a second available television channel in the remaining television band in such areas for shared use by white space devices and wireless microphones, in addition to the one such channel it has tentatively concluded will be made available in each area of the United States for shared use by these devices and microphones. The Commission invited comment on this tentative conclusion and stated that it intends to address in the same order all proposals in the Vacant Channel NPRM as well as the proposals raised in the Auctions Procedures PN. To that end, the Commission directed the Media Bureau to establish new comment and reply deadlines of September 30 and October 30, 2015, respectively, for the proposals in the Vacant Channel NPRM as well as the proposal in paragraph 32 of the Auctions Procedures PN.

    3. By this Order, as directed by the Commission in the Auctions Procedures PN, the Media Bureau announces that comments are now due on September 30, 2015 and reply comments on October 30, 2015.

    Kevin Harding, Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23380 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [4500030115] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 25 Petitions AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on various petitions to list, reclassify, or delist fish, wildlife, or plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that two petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, and we are not initiating status reviews in response to these petitions. We refer to these as “not-substantial petition findings.”

    We also find that 23 petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

    DATES:

    To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we request that we receive information no later than November 17, 2015. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Not-substantial petition findings: The not-substantial petition findings announced in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see Table 2, below). Supporting information in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Status reviews: You may submit information on species for which a status review is being initiated by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see Table 1, below). You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see Table 1, below]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below, for more details).

    Table 1—List of Substantial Findings for Which a Status Review Is Being Initiated Common name Docket No. URL to docket in regs.gov Blue Calamintha bee FWS-R4-ES-2015-0077 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0077. California spotted owl FWS-R8-ES-2015-0139 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0139. Cascade torrent salamander FWS-R1-ES-2015-0080 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0080. Columbia torrent salamander FWS-R1-ES-2015-0083 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0083. Florida pine snake FWS-R4-ES-2015-0086 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0086. Inyo Mountains salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0092 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0092. Kern Plateau salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0093 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0093. Lesser slender salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0097 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0097. Limestone salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0099 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0099. Northern bog lemming FWS-R5-ES-2015-0103 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R5-ES-2015-0103. Panamint alligator lizard FWS-R8-ES-2015-0105 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0105. Peaks of Otter salamander FWS-R5-ES-2015-0106 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R5-ES-2015-0106. Regal fritillary FWS-R6-ES-2015-0078 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R6-ES-2015-0078. Rusty patched bumble bee FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112. Shasta salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0115 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0115. Short-tailed snake FWS-R4-ES-2015-0116 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0116. Southern rubber boa FWS-R8-ES-2015-0119 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0119. Tinian monarch FWS-R1-ES-2015-0118 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0118. Tricolored blackbird FWS-R8-ES-2015-0138 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0138. Tufted puffin FWS-R1-ES-2015-0108 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0108. Virgin River spinedace FWS-R6-ES-2015-0121 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R6-ES-2015-0121. Wood turtle FWS-R5-ES-2015-0122 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R5-ES-2015-0122. Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard FWS-R2-ES-2015-0124 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2015-0124. Table 2—List of Not Substantial Findings Common name Docket No. URL to docket in regs.gov Cahaba pebblesnail FWS-R4-ES-2015-0079 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0079. Stephens' kangaroo rat FWS-R8-ES-2015-0140 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0140. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Common name Contact person Blue Calamintha bee Andreas Moshogianis, 404-679-7119. Cahaba pebblesnail Robert Tawes, 404-679-7142. California spotted owl Scott Flaherty, 916-978-6156. Cascade torrent salamander Paul Henson, 503-231-6179. Columbia torrent salamander Eric Rickerson, 360 753-9440. Florida pine snake Andreas Moshogianis, 404-679-7119. Inyo Mountains salamander Ted Koch, 775-861-6300. Kern Plateau salamander Jennifer Norris, 916-414-6600. Lesser slender salamander Steven Henry, 805-644-1766. Limestone salamander Jennifer Norris, 916-414-6600. Northern bog lemming Krishna Gifford, 413-253-8619. Panamint alligator lizard Mendel Stewart, 760-431-9440. Peaks of Otter salamander Roberta Hylton, 276-623-1233, ext. 22. Regal fritillary Justin Shoemaker, 309-757-5800, ext. 214. Rusty patched bumble bee Laura Ragan, 612-713-5157. Shasta salamander Jennifer Norris, 916-414-6600. Short-tailed snake Andreas Moshogianis, 404-679-7119. Southern rubber boa Mendel Stewart, 760-431-9440. Stephens' kangaroo rat Bradd Bridges, 760-431-9440, ext. 221. Tinian monarch Kristi Young, 808-792-9400. Tricolored blackbird Jennifer Norris, 916-414-6600. Tufted puffin Eric Rickerson, 360 753-9440. Virgin River spinedace Justin Shoemaker, 309-757-5800, ext. 214. Wood turtle Wende Mahaney, 207-866-3344. Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard Michelle Shaughnessy, 505-248-6920.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Information for Status Reviews

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:

    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

    (a) Habitat requirements;

    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;

    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;

    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:

    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);

    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);

    (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);

    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or

    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

    (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.

    If, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) for domestic (U.S.) species under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information for the species listed in Table 1 on:

    (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;

    (2) Where these features are currently found;

    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;

    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and

    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.

    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

    You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing these 90-day findings is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office (contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which will be subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Blue Calamintha Bee as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0077 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Blue Calamintha bee (Osmia calaminthae); Florida Petition History

    On February 5, 2015, we received a petition dated February 5, 2015, from Defenders of Wildlife requesting that the blue Calamintha bee be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the blue Calamintha bee (Osmia calaminthae) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Cahaba Pebblesnail as an Endangered Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0079 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Cahaba pebblesnail (Clappia cahabensis); Alabama Petition History

    On January 6, 2015, we received a petition dated December 18, 2014, from the Institute for Wildlife Protection, requesting that the Cahaba pebblesnail be listed as endangered under the Act. The petition further requested that we emergency list the species. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a February 18, 2015, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition to list the species as endangered.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition, and information available in our files at the time the petition was received, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Cahaba pebblesnail (Clappia cahabensis) as endangered may be warranted. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing this species as endangered may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0079 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Cahaba pebblesnail or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the California Spotted Owl as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0139 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis); California Petition History

    On January 9, 2015, we received a petition dated December 22, 2014, from the Wild Nature Institute and the John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute, requesting that the California spotted owl be listed as endangered or threatened and that we designate critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a February 12, 2015, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses this petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petitions and sources cited in the petitions, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) based on Factors A, D, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Second Petition To List the California Spotted Owl

    We received another petition dated August 19, 2015, from Sierra Forest Legacy and Defenders of Wildlife, to list the California spotted owl as endangered, and requesting we designate critical habitat for the species. This finding serves to notify the petitioners that we have received their petition, and that, because we have made a substantial finding on the December 22, 2014, petition and are initiating a status review of the species, we will include the information they provided in our status review for the owl.

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Cascade Torrent Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0080 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae); Washington and Oregon Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Cascade torrent salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Columbia Torrent Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0083 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri); Oregon and Washington Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 amphibians and reptiles, including the Columbia torrent salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Florida Pine Snake as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0086 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus); Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Florida pine snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) for listing based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Inyo Mountains Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0092 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range

    Inyo Mountains salamander (Batrachoseps campi); California.

    Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Inyo Mountains salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Inyo Mountains salamander (Batrachoseps campi) based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Kern Plateau Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0093 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Kern Plateau salamander (Batrachoseps robustus); California Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Kern Plateau salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Kern Plateau salamander (Batrachoseps robustus) based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Lesser Slender Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0097 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Lesser slender salamander (Batrachoseps minor); California Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the lesser slender salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the lesser slender salamander (Batrachoseps minor) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Limestone Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0099 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Limestone salamander (Hydromantes brunus); California Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the limestone salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the limestone salamander (Hydromantes brunus) based on Factor A. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Northern Bog Lemming as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0103 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis); Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York Petition History

    On September 30, 2014, we received a petition dated September 29, 2014, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the northern bog lemming be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petitioner requested:

    • Listing of the full species;

    • Listing of the individual subspecies (in particular, the disjunct population of S. b. sphagnicola south of the St. Lawrence River in Maine and New Hampshire); or

    • Listing of the U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of S. b. chapmani.

    The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an October 3, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Panamint Alligator Lizard as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0105 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria panamintina); California Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Panamint alligator lizard, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria panamintina) based on Factors A and B. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Peaks of Otter Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0106 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti); Virginia Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Peaks of Otter salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Regal Fritillary as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0078 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia); Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia Petition History

    On April 24, 2013, we received a petition dated April 19, 2013, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that the regal fritillary be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee as an Endangered Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0112 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis); Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Ontario, Canada Petition History

    On February 5, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition dated January 31, 2013, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces) requesting that the rusty patched bumble bee be listed under the Act as an endangered species. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On February 14, 2014, Xerces provided the Service with written notice of their intent to sue for failure to issue a petition finding. Xerces filed a complaint on May 13, 2014, against the Service for failure to issue a timely 90-day finding. The Service and Xerces reached a settlement to deliver a 90-day petition finding to the Federal Register no later than September 30, 2015. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Shasta Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0115 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae); California Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Shasta salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Short-Tailed Snake as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0116 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum); Florida Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the short-tailed snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Southern Rubber Boa as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0119 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica or Charina bottae umbratica); California Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the southern rubber boa, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica or Charina bottae umbratica) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To Remove the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0140 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi); California Petition History

    On November 10, 2014, we received a petition dated November 7, 2014, from the Riverside County Farm Bureau and the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Responsibility, requesting that Stephens' kangaroo rat, which is listed as an endangered species, be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (“delisted”), based on a new analysis of the rat's dispersal ability. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the Stephens' kangaroo rat may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0140 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Tinian Monarch as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0118 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Tinian monarch (Monarcha takatsukasae); Tinian Island (an island in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) Petition History

    On December 12, 2013, we received a petition dated December 11, 2013, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Tinian monarch be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a January 29, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Tinian monarch (Monarcha takatsukasae) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Tricolored Blackbird as an Endangered Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0138 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor); California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington (United States), and Baja California (Mexico) Petition History

    On February 5, 2015, we received a petition dated February 3, 2015, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the tricolored blackbird be listed as endangered under the Act. The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for this species. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 13, 2015, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) based on Factors A, C, D, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for the tricolored blackbird, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Tufted Puffin as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0108 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata); Washington, Oregon, California Petition History

    On February 14, 2014, we received a petition dated February 12, 2014, from Natural Resources Defense Council, requesting that the contiguous U.S. DPS of the tufted puffin be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the contiguous U.S. DPS of tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Virgin River Spinedace as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0121 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Virgin River spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis); Arizona, Nevada, and Utah Petition History

    On November 20, 2012, we received a petition dated November 20, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Virgin River spinedace be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a December 20, 2012, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition presented information that an emergency listing is warranted. This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Virgin River spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Wood Turtle as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0122 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta); Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Canada Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the wood turtle, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) as endangered or threatened may be warranted based on Factors A, B, C, D, and E. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Evaluation of a Petition To List the Yuman Desert Fringe-toed Lizard as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

    Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0124 under the Supporting Documents section.

    Species and Range Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard (Uma rufopunctata); Arizona (United States) and Sonora (Mexico) Petition History

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard, be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard (Uma rufopunctata) may be warranted based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).

    Conclusion

    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Cahaba pebblesnail and Stephens' kangaroo rat do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews for these species.

    The petitions summarized above for the blue Calamintha bee, California spotted owl, Cascade torrent salamander, Columbia torrent salamander, Florida pine snake, Inyo Mountains salamander, Kern Plateau salamander, lesser slender salamander, limestone salamander, northern bog lemming, Panamint alligator lizard, Peaks of Otter salamander, regal fritillary, rusty patched bumble bee, Shasta salamander, short-tailed snake, southern rubber boa, Tinian monarch, tricolored blackbird, tufted puffin, Virgin River spinedace, wood turtle, and the Yuman desert fringe-toed lizard present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted.

    Because we have found that these petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a 12-month finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes listing is warranted.

    It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead field offices (contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Authority

    The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 31, 2015. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23315 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 200 [Docket No. 150227193-5193-01] RIN 0648-BE92 Establish a Single Small Business Size Standard for Commercial Fishing Businesses AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to establish a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411), for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only. The proposed $11 million standard would be used in RFA analyses in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry, respectively. Establishing a single size standard of $11 million for the commercial fishing industry would simplify the RFA analyses done in support of NMFS' rules, better meet the RFA's intent by more accurately representing expected disproportionate effects of NMFS' rules between small and large businesses, create a standard that more accurately reflects the size distribution of all businesses in the commercial fishing industry, and allow NMFS to determine when changes to the standard are necessary and appropriate.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0061, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0061, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send written comments to Mike Travis, NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Ave. S., St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Travis, Industry Economist, at (727) 209-5982.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Prior to 2013, SBA had set the small business size standard for all sectors of the commercial fishing industry at the same amount. Since 2005, this standard had been $4 million in annual gross receipts (revenues). Effective July 22, 2013, SBA established significantly different and higher size standards for the three separate sectors of the industry (78 FR 37398, June 20, 2013): $19 million for commercial finfish fishing businesses (NAICS 114111), $5.0 million for commercial shellfish fishing businesses (NAICS 114112), and $7.0 million for other commercial marine fishing businesses (NAICS 114119). These standards were subsequently adjusted for inflation to $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million, respectively, via an interim final rule, effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 requires SBA to review all size standards every five years to account for changes in industry structure and market conditions. SBA is also required to assess the impact of inflation on its monetary-based size standards at least once every five years (13 CFR 121.102). However, as reflected by the timing of the two recent rulemakings adjusting the size standards, SBA is not required to conduct the reviews for these two purposes simultaneously. Thus, these size standards are likely to change on a regular basis.

    Under the RFA, an agency must prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA/FRFA) for each proposed and final rule, respectively, unless it certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies generally rely on the SBA size standards to identify small entities for RFA purposes. For NMFS, rulemaking activities that have been impacted by changes to the size standards for defining “small” businesses include, but are not limited to, regulatory actions and analyses undertaken pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Between 2012 and 2014, NMFS published an average of 285 final rules per year, more than 40 percent of which required an RFA analysis, and a majority of those directly regulated commercial fishing businesses. Thus, NMFS' costs of complying with the RFA are significant even when the small business size standards are stable, and those costs increase substantially when the standards are changing on a recurring basis.

    NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) have encountered significant difficulties implementing and adjusting to the new standards because: (1) The change was from a single size standard for all commercial fishing businesses to three very different standards, (2) many commercial fishing businesses participate in both finfish and shellfish fishing activities, making it unclear which standard to apply in the RFA analyses, and (3) a number of rules simultaneously implement regulations under fishery management plans for both finfish and shellfish species (for e.g., 76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011; 76 FR 82414, December 30, 2011; 77 FR 15916, March 26, 2012; and 80 FR 41472, July 15, 2015), again making it unclear which standard to apply in the RFA analyses.

    Furthermore, one of the RFA's primary purposes is to determine if proposed regulations are expected to have disproportionate economic impacts on small businesses relative to large businesses and, if so, to consider alternatives that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts on small businesses. Under SBA's current standards for commercial fishing businesses, practically all commercial fishing businesses, and particularly commercial finfish fishing businesses, would likely be determined to be small. Thus, in their RFA analyses, NMFS and the Councils would not be able to discern, consider, or address any disproportionate economic impacts that various regulatory alternatives might have on businesses NMFS and the Councils think are “small” in the commercial fishing industry. Such an outcome effectively precludes NMFS from fulfilling one of the RFA's primary purposes and thus is not desirable.

    Section 601(3) of the RFA provides that an agency, after consultation with SBA's Office of Advocacy and after an opportunity for public comment, may establish one or more definitions of “small business” which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publish such definition(s) in the Federal Register. Further, 13 CFR 121.903(c) states that “where the agency head is developing a size standard for the sole purpose of performing a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis pursuant to section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the department or agency may, after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish a size standard different from SBA's which is more appropriate for such analysis.” NMFS and the Department of Commerce General Counsel's Office had preliminary discussions with SBA's Office of Advocacy about these provisions, and SBA was supportive of NMFS using RFA section 601(3) and 13 CFR 121.903(c) to establish its own size standard for the commercial fishing industry for purposes of RFA analyses only.

    SBA has also previously expressed support for the idea of creating a single size standard in instances where industries are closely related, as is the case for the commercial finfish and shellfish fishing industries. In its proposed rule to change the size standard for businesses in manufacturing industries (79 FR 54146, Sept. 10, 2014), SBA stated: “To simplify size standards and for other reasons, SBA may propose a common size standard for closely related industries. Although the size standard analysis may support a separate size standard for each industry, SBA believes that establishing different size standards for closely related industries may not always be appropriate. For example, in cases where many of the same businesses operate in the same multiple industries, a common size standard for those industries might better reflect the Federal marketplace. This might also make size standards among related industries more consistent than separate size standards for each of those industries.” (79 FR 54146, 54150, Sept. 10, 2014).

    NMFS has determined that the data used by SBA's Office of Size Standards to develop the new standards are incomplete and, as a result, not representative of all commercial fishing businesses. Specifically, the data used by SBA only account for commercial fishing businesses that have employees (i.e., employer firms), and thus do not include commercial fishing businesses that do not have employees (i.e., non-employer firms). Non-employer commercial fishing businesses typically pay their self-employed crew a percentage of the gross or net revenue on each commercial fishing trip rather than a standard wage or salary, and thus self-employed crew are not considered employees. Commercial fishing businesses with employees represent only about 3 percent of all commercial fishing businesses, while the other 97 percent are non-employer firms.

    Further, according to SBA, annual gross revenues for finfish and shellfish commercial fishing businesses with employees average $1.6 and $0.6 million, respectively. Conversely, NMFS determined the annual gross revenues for commercial fishing businesses without employees is only about $44,000 on average. Thus, NMFS concluded the exclusion of commercial fishing businesses without employees is primarily responsible for the magnitude of the size standard increases, particularly for finfish fishing businesses, and the standards would have been very different if SBA had used data for all commercial fishing businesses. Because the size standards apply to all commercial fishing businesses, not just those with employees, when used to analyze the economic impacts of management actions on directly regulated entities under the RFA, NMFS thinks it is more appropriate to have size standards for RFA purposes that are based on all commercial fishing businesses.

    In conjunction with its recent review of size standards, SBA developed a “Size Standards Methodology” for establishing, reviewing, and modifying size standards, where necessary. SBA included it as a supporting document in the electronic docket of the September 11, 2012, proposed rule to change the size standards for the three sectors of the commercial fishing industry (77 FR 55755) at www.regulations.gov. Application of this new methodology resulted in the significantly different size standards for the three separate sectors of the industry. NMFS referenced this document in developing the proposed size standard in this proposed rule. Consistent with that methodology, SBA used the following industry factors to establish the current size standards for NAICS Sector 11 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting): Average firm size, as measured by simple average receipts and weighted average receipts; average assets size; the four-firm concentration ratio (i.e., the percentage of receipts accounted for by the four largest firms in the industry); and the Gini coefficient, which measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of firms by receipts size class under SBA's approach.

    SBA's primary source of industry data used in the rule to establish the new size standards for the three sectors of the commercial fishing industry was a special tabulation of the 2007 County Business Patterns data from the U.S. Bureau of Census (Census Bureau). This special tabulation provided SBA with data on the number of employer firms, number of establishments, number of employees, annual payroll, and annual receipts of companies by U.S. industry (6-digit NAICS code). These data were arrayed by various classes of firms' size based on the overall number of employees and gross receipts of the entire enterprise (all establishments and affiliated firms) from all industries. These data allowed SBA to estimate average firm size, the four-firm concentration ratio, and the Gini coefficient.

    SBA's Office of Size Standards provided these data upon request to NMFS. NMFS subsequently requested and received from the Census Bureau comparable data for non-employer businesses. NMFS aggregated data to the industry level (i.e., NAICS 11411) for employer and non-employer businesses and then combined these data. Although data confidentiality was not an issue with the non-employer data, prior to aggregation NMFS had to estimate total gross receipts in certain receipts classes for employer firms where the Census Bureau determined the data were confidential and thus could not be released. The combined data provide a complete accounting of the distribution of businesses and receipts by receipt size class category for all commercial fishing businesses. NMFS used these data to generate estimates of certain industry factors needed to establish a single size standard for the commercial fishing businesses, consistent with SBA's methodology to the extent practicable.

    Specifically, NMFS used the data it received from SBA and the Census Bureau to generate estimates of simple average receipts, weighted average receipts, and the Gini coefficient. For simple average receipts, each firm's share of the industry's total receipts is weighted equally, whereas the shares of larger firms receive larger weights in estimating weighted average receipts. Weighted average receipts and the Gini coefficient were estimated using the equations provided in SBA's Size Standards Methodology document. NMFS generated the following estimates for the commercial fishing industry: $77,178 for simple average receipts, $12,322,365 for weighted average receipts, and 0.755 for the Gini coefficient. Based on the information in Table 2 of SBA's proposed rule to change the size standards for the finfish, shellfish, and other marine fishing sectors of the commercial fishing industry (77 FR 55755), these estimates support size standards of $5 million, $5 million, and $19 million, respectively.

    SBA also considers the average assets size of firms to be an important factor in establishing a size standard. NMFS does not possess and was not able to procure assets size data for non-employer businesses. SBA has such data for employer firms in the finfish and shellfish sectors, though not for employer firms in the other marine fishing sector because of the very small number of firms in that sector. The number of firms in the other marine fishing sector is very small because it includes firms primarily involved in the harvest of corals, sponges, reef associated plants (e.g., algae), and aquarium trade species, whose allowable harvest levels are very small. However, SBA had to purchase the assets size data for employer firms in the finfish and shellfish sectors from a private source and thus could not share the data with NMFS due to their proprietary nature. Therefore, NMFS created an estimate based on data that SBA published in its proposed rule, using the following approach.

    According to SBA's proposed rule, the average assets sizes for the finfish and shellfish commercial fishing sectors are $1.4 million and $0.4 million, respectively. Finfish fishing firms and shellfish fishing firms represent approximately 54 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of the 2,039 employer firms in those two sectors combined. Based on these percentages, the weighted average assets size of the combined finfish and shellfish commercial fishing sectors is approximately $0.94 million. Based on Table 2 in SBA's proposed rule, this estimate supports a $7 million size standard.

    SBA does not consider the average receipts of the four largest firms to be an important factor in establishing a size standard for industries where the four-firm concentration ratio is below 40 percent (i.e., receipts of the 4 largest firms account for less than 40 percent of the total receipts). According to the data SBA provided to NMFS, the four largest firms in the commercial fishing industry are commercial finfish fishing businesses. Within the finfish sector, these firms only account for 29 percent of total receipts within that sector. Therefore, within the larger commercial fishing industry as a whole, the percentage of receipts they account for must be less than 29 percent. Because the four largest firms account for less than 40 percent of the total receipts for the commercial fishing industry, consistent with SBA's methodology, NMFS did not use the four-firm concentration ratio in establishing a single size standard for the commercial fishing industry.

    According to SBA's methodology, all factors should be weighted equally. Therefore, NMFS averaged the standards supported by the simple average receipts ($5 million), weighted average receipts ($5 million), Gini coefficient ($19 million), and average assets size ($7 million) estimates, which results in a size standard of $9 million. However, SBA only allowed for eight size standards in its final rule (79 FR 54146, September 10, 2014): $5 million, $7 million, $10 million, $14 million, $19 million, $25.5 million, $30 million, and $35.5 million. When the estimated size standard is not equivalent to one of these eight standards, SBA rounds up to the next highest size standard. For NMFS' estimated $9 million size standard, the next highest size standard would be $10 million. If the average assets size factor is not included, because it is based on aggregated employer data only rather than a combination of employer and non-employer data, the average of the other 3 factors is $9.67 million. Thus, the next highest size standard would still be $10 million.

    NMFS is aware the Census Bureau has recently released the 2012 County Business Patterns data for employer firms. However, 2012 data for non-employer firms has not yet been released. As previously discussed, NMFS does not think it is prudent to propose a size standard based only on employer data because 97 percent of the commercial fishing businesses are non-employers. Further, even if the 2012 non-employer data is released and NMFS generates new estimates of the various industry factors, NMFS would still not be able to determine what standards are implied by the new estimates until SBA generates an updated version of Table 2 in its proposed rule to change the size standards for the finfish, shellfish, and other marine fishing sectors of the commercial fishing industry (77 FR 55755) using 2012 rather than 2007 data.

    As previously stated, SBA recently implemented a rule to adjust all of its receipts based size standards for inflation using the chain-type price index for the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP price index) (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). According to that rule, for all industries with a non-inflation-adjusted size standard of $10 million, the new inflation-adjusted size standard is $11 million.

    Thus, this rule proposes to establish a small business size standard of $11 million for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes only. This single size standard for commercial fishing businesses would be used in all RFA analyses conducted in support of NMFS' regulatory actions. Establishing this single size standard would simplify the RFA analyses done in support of NMFS' rules, better meet the RFA's intent by more accurately representing expected disproportionate effects of NMFS' rules between small and large commercial fishing businesses, create a standard that more accurately reflects the size distribution of all businesses in the commercial fishing industry, and allow NMFS to determine when changes to the standard are necessary and appropriate.

    Consistent with SBA's review requirements under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and 13 CFR 121.102, NMFS also proposes to review this standard at least once every 5 years to determine if a change is warranted. A change may be warranted because of changes in industry structure, market conditions, inflation, or other relevant factors. The reviews for these potential reasons will be conducted simultaneously in order to minimize the frequency of changes to the standard and additional rulemakings.

    Consistent with the requirements in 13 CFR 121.903(c), NMFS will formally consult SBA's Office of Advocacy to ensure their concurrence with this proposed action.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 601(3) of the RFA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the RFA and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined by the Office of Management and Budget to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.

    The purposes of the rule are to establish a single small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411), for RFA compliance purposes only, and a requirement for NMFS to assess at least once every 5 years whether this size standard should be changed. The objectives of the rule are to simplify the RFA analyses done in support of NMFS' rules, better meet the RFA's intent by more accurately representing expected disproportionate effects of NMFS' rules between small and large businesses, create a standard that more accurately reflects the size distribution of all businesses in the commercial fishing industry, and allow NMFS to determine when changes to the standard are necessary and appropriate. The RFA and 13 CFR 121.903(c) serve as the legal basis for the rule.

    The actions in this rule are administrative in nature and thus would only potentially generate indirect economic effects on commercial fishing businesses. Specifically, the proposed size standard would only affect how NMFS and the Councils determine whether commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by future regulatory actions are small or large, whether and to what extent those actions have disproportionate economic impacts on those two classes of businesses, and when it is appropriate for NMFS to change the standard in the future. This rule would not impose any new requirements on commercial fishing businesses. Therefore, no small entities would be directly regulated by this rule. This rule would not be expected to affect the behavior or operations of commercial fishing businesses. As such, this rule is not expected to generate any direct economic effects on commercial fishing businesses.

    Based on the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an IRFA is not required and none has been prepared.

    No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 200

    Commercial fishing, Small businesses.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to add 50 CFR part 200 under subchapter A to read as follows:

    SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL PROVISIONS PART 200—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY NMFS FOR REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT COMPLIANCE PURPOSES ONLY Sec. 200.1 Purpose and scope. 200.2 Small business size standards and frequency of review. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    § 200.1 Purpose and scope.

    (a) This part sets forth the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) small business size standards for NMFS to use in conducting Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analyses for NMFS actions subject to the RFA. This part also sets forth the timeframe for NMFS to review its small business size standards.

    (b) NMFS has established the alternative size standards in this part, for RFA compliance purposes only, in order to simplify the RFA analyses done in support of NMFS' rules, better meet the RFA's intent by more accurately representing expected disproportionate effects of NMFS' rules between small and large businesses, create a standard that more accurately reflects the size distribution of all businesses in the industry, and allow NMFS to determine when changes to the standard are necessary and appropriate.

    § 200.2 Small business size standards and frequency of review.

    (a) NMFS' small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing is $11 million in annual gross receipts. This standard applies to all businesses classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411 for commercial fishing, including all businesses classified as commercial finfish fishing (NAICS 114111), commercial shellfish fishing (NAICS 114112), and other commercial marine fishing (NAICS 114119) businesses.

    (b) NMFS will review each of the small business size standards in paragraph (a) of this section at least once every 5 years to determine if a change is warranted. A change may be warranted because of changes in industry structure, market conditions, inflation, or other relevant factors.

    [FR Doc. 2015-23375 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 181 Friday, September 18, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by October 19, 2015. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    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.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Reporting Requirements under Regulations Governing Inspection and Grading Services of Manufactured or Processed Dairy Products and the Certification of Sanitary Design & Fabrication of Equipment used in the Slaughter, Processing, and Packaging of Livestock and Poultry Products.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0126.

    Summary of Collection: The Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), directs and authorizes the Department to develop standards of quality, condition, quantity, grading programs, and services to enable a more orderly marketing of agricultural products. The regulations governing the voluntary inspection and grading program for dairy products is contained in 7 CFR part 58. The certification regulations for livestock and poultry products are contained in 7 CFR part 54. The Government, industry and consumer will be well served if the Government can help insure that dairy products are produced under sanitary conditions and that buyers have the choice of purchasing the quality of the product they desire. The dairy grading program is a voluntary user fee program. In order for a voluntary inspection program to perform satisfactorily with a minimum of confusion, information must be collected to determine what services are requested.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is used to identify the product offered for grading; to identify and contact the individuals responsible for payment of the grading or equipment evaluation fee and expense; and to identify the person responsible for administering the grade label program. The Agriculture Marketing service will use several forms to collect essential information to carry out and administer the inspection and grading program.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit.

    Number of Respondents: 168.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,252.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23404 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection Request; Servicing Minor Program Loans AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection to support the Servicing Minor Program Loans.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register, the OMB control number and the title of the information collection. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Cindy Van Nostrand, Loan Servicing and Properties Management Division, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 0523, Washington, DC 20250-00523.

    You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Van Nostrand, (202) 720-0900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Servicing Minor Program Loans.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0230.

    Expiration Date: March 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Abstract: Section 331(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONTACT, 7 U.S.C. 1981(b)), in part, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to modify, subordinate and release terms of security instruments, leases, contracts, and agreements entered into by FSA. That section also authorizes transfers of security property, as the Secretary deems necessary, to carry out the purpose of the loan or protect the Government's financial interest. Section 335 of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1985) provides servicing authority for real estate security; operation or lease of realty; disposition of property; conveyance of real property interest of the United States; easements; and condemnations.

    The information collection relates to a program benefit recipient or loan borrower requesting action on security they own, which was purchased with FSA loan funds, improved with FSA loan funds or has otherwise been mortgaged to FSA to secure a Government loan. The information collected is primarily financial data not already on file, such as borrower asset values, current financial information and public use and employment data.

    The formulas used to calculate the total burden hours is “the estimated average time per respondents” times “the total estimated annual response.”

    Estimate of Annual Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .64 hours per response.

    Respondents: Individuals, associations, partnerships, or corporations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 58.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual of Responses: 58.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 0.64 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 37 hours.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.

    Val Dolcini, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23430 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 14, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food Safety and Inspection Service

    Title: Certificate of Medical Examination.

    OMB Control Number: 0583—New.

    Summary of Collection: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Egg products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 et. seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS will use a new form FSIS 4339-1, Certificate of Medical Examination (with Report of Medical History) to collect information from applicant.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSIS will use the information from FSIS 4339-1 form to determine whether or not an applicant for an FSIS Food Inspector, Consumer Safety Inspector, or Veterinary Medical Officer in-plant position meets the Office of Personnel management approved medical qualification standards. This new form will ensure accurate collection of the required data.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 500.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 750.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23405 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    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 and other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by October 19, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    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.

    Forest Service

    Title: Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Reporting Tool.

    OMB Control Number: 0596-0215.

    Summary of Collection: All Federal agencies and the entities receiving Federal financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating in the delivery of programs and services. Agencies must comply with equal opportunity laws, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972; The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; and Executive orders prohibiting discrimination in the delivery of all programs and services to the public. The Federal government is required to conduct periodic program compliance reviews of recipients of Federal financial assistance to ensure they are adhering to the nondiscrimination statutes. Forest Service personnel integral to the pre-award and post-award process will collect this information during face-to-face meetings or telephone interviews.

    Need and Use of the Information: Forest Service will use form series FS-1700-6, “Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record” to collect the information and document assisted program compliance. Data collected includes information on actions taken by recipients to ensure the public receives service without discrimination or barriers to access and the recipients' employees understand their customer service responsibilities. The information collected is for internal use only and is utilized to establish and monitor civil rights compliance.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit Institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 11,800.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 11,904.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23406 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Renewal of Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges: Flider Electronics, LLC a/k/a Flider Electronics d/b/a Trident International Corporation d/b/a Trident International d/b/a Trident International Corporation, LLC, 837 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102; Pavel Semenovich Flider a/k/a Pavel Flider, 21 Eye Street, San Rafael, California 94901; and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider a/k/a Gennadiy Flider, 699 36th Avenue #203, San Francisco, California 94121

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations” or “EAR”),1 I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) to renew the March 23, 2015 Amended Order Temporarily Denying the Export Privileges of Flider Electronics, LLC, a/k/a Flider Electronics, d/b/a Trident International Corporation, d/b/a Trident International, d/b/a Trident International Corporation, LLC (“Trident” or “Flider Electronics, LLC, d/b/a Trident International Corporation”); Pavel Semenovich Flider a/k/a Pavel Flider (“Pavel Flider”); and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider a/k/a Gennadiy Flider (“Gennadiy Flider”). I find that renewal of the Temporary Denial Order (“TDO”) is necessary in the public interest to prevent imminent violation of the EAR.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2015). The EAR issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010).

    I. Procedural History and Background

    On March 19, 2015, I signed the TDO, which denied for 180 days the export privileges of Trident, as well as Pavel Flider, the president and owner of Trident, and Gennadiy Flider, also a Trident office manager, with responsibilities relating directly to the procurement and export activities referenced in the TDO. As discussed in detail in the TDO, OEE presented evidence of a pattern of exports by Trident from the United States to Russia, via transshipment through Estonia or Finland, involving false statements and other evasive actions or schemes designed to camouflage the actual destination, end uses, and/or end users of the U.S.-origin items that Trident was exporting on an ongoing basis. These U.S.-origin items included items listed on the Commerce Control List (“CCL”) and subject to national security-based license requirements. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Regulations, I found that the TDO was necessary to prevent further and imminent violation of the EAR by Trident, and pursuant to Section 766.23, found that it was necessary, in order to prevent evasion of the TDO, to add Pavel Flider and Gennadiy Flider to the TDO as related persons to Trident.

    The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went into effect upon issuance on March 19, 2015. I subsequently amended the TDO on March 23, 2015 making limited revision to page 6 of the March 19, 2015 order, without changing my findings or the terms of the order issued on March 19, 2015. The March 23, 2015 amended order did not change the denial period, which continued to run for 180 days from March 19, 2015, that is, through and including September 14, 2015, subject to potential renewal upon timely application by OEE, as clearly set forth in the TDO. Copies of both the original and amended TDO were sent to each party named in the relevant order in accordance with Section 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations, and the original and amended TDOs were published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2015, and March 30, 2015, respectively. See 80 FR 15979 (March 26, 2015); 80 FR 16632 (March 30, 2015).

    On August 21, 2015, OEE submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO. This request was timely made under Section 766.24(d) (BIS may request renewal of a temporary denial order no later than 20 days before the expiration date of the order).

    Notice of the renewal request was provided to Trident, the respondent, in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations, via both service upon Trident and its president and owner, Pavel Flider. No opposition has been received from Trident.2

    2 Parties named as related persons may appeal whether their addition as related persons accords with Section 766.23 of the Regulations, but may not challenge the issuance or oppose the renewal of the underlying TDO. See Section 766.24(d)(3)(ii). Neither Pavel Flider nor Gennadiy Flider has ever appealed or otherwise responded to their inclusion as related persons.

    II. TDO Renewal A. Legal Standard

    Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.” Id. As to the likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under investigation or charge “is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or negligent [.]” Id. A “lack of information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.” Id.

    B. Request for Renewal

    OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the TDO and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation, including evidence discussed in the TDO and summarized in Section I., supra. OEE's ongoing investigation of Trident, in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, included the execution of a search warrant at Trident's place of business and Pavel Flider's residence on or about March 18, 2015, and at two storage lockers on or about April 10, 2015.

    Despite the issuance of the TDO and the execution of the search warrants, Trident repeatedly sought to order or buy items subject to the EAR from a U.S.-based electronics distributor from whom Trident had previously purchased items for export. Beginning on or about July 10, 2015, through on or about July 21, 2015, while the TDO by its plain terms remained in effect, Pavel Flider contacted employees of this electronics distributor requesting to reestablish Trident's account and make additional purchases of electronic components, including for computer chips. Several of the distributor's employees were solicited in an effort to place additional purchase orders for more computer chips for Trident. The computer chips, which OEE has reason to believe were intended for export based upon the respondents' conduct both prior to and after issuance of the TDO,3 are subject to the EAR.

    3 In addition, during an interview on March 18, 2015, with BIS Special Agents, along with agents from the Department of Homeland Security, Pavel Flider stated that Trident had a single customer in Estonia named Adimir OU (“Adimir”) between 2000-2013, and that all items sent to Adimir were transshipped to Russia, including large volumes of items classified as Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 3A001.a.2.c. Beginning in 2014, however, Trident began exporting directly to Russia. Pavel Flider confirmed that Trident did not apply for or obtain an export license from BIS for any of the items exported from the United States.

    The distributor declined to accept or fill the orders following each attempt or solicitation by Trident. Finally, on or about July 21, 2015, a senior official of the distributor contacted Pavel Flider by phone to inform him that it was the distributor's corporate policy not to conduct additional business with a company such as Trident. Nonetheless, both during and shortly after this call, Pavel Flider again attempted to solicit purchases for more electronic components, stating that Trident would resume exporting in September 2015, following expiration of the TDO.

    The TDO at all times over the last 180 days broadly prohibited the denied parties from participating in any way in any transaction involving any item subject to the EAR that is to be exported from the United States, including, but not limited to, carrying on negotiations concerning, ordering, or buying any such item. Similarly, it prohibited any of the denied parties from benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any such item. Likewise, both prior to issuance of the TDO and during the denial period, the EAR prohibited, inter alia, acting contrary to the terms of a temporary denial order or other type or form of denial order (see Section 764.2(k)), attempting to violate or soliciting a violation of the EAR or any order issued thereunder (see Section 764.2(c)), or engaging in any transaction or taking any other action with intent to evade the EAR or any order issued thereunder (see Section 764.2(h)). In addition, as referenced above, the TDO plainly stated that it was subject to renewal.

    C. Findings

    I find that the overall record here, as discussed above and in the TDO as issued and amended in March 2015, demonstrates that renewal of the TDO is necessary to avoid imminent violation of the EAR, based upon the evidence presented by OEE of deliberate and evasive conduct both pre- and post-issuance of the TDO. Accordingly, renewal of the TDO is needed to provide continued notice to persons in the United States and abroad that they should not deal with respondent Trident, or with related and denied persons Pavel Flider and Gennadiy Flider, in connection with any exports, reexports, or other transactions involving any items subject to the EAR or any other activities subject to the EAR. Doing so is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR.

    It is therefore ORDERED:

    First, that Flider Electronics, LLC, a/k/a Flider Electronics, d/b/a Trident International Corporation, d/b/a Trident International d/b/a Trident International Corporation, LLC, 837 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102; Pavel Semenovich Flider, a/k/a Pavel Flider, 21 Eye Street, San Rafael, California 94901; and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider, a/k/a Gennadiy Flider, 699 36th Avenue #203, San Francisco, California 94121, and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.

    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    THIRD, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, Flider Electronics, LLC, d/b/a Trident International Corporation, may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pavel Semenovich Flider and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider may, at any time, appeal his inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. Flider Electronics, LLC d/b/a Trident International Corporation may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.

    A copy of this Order shall be sent to Flider Electronics LLC d/b/a Trident International Corporation and each related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order is effective upon issuance and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. David W. Mills, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23447 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC) have determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for this AD order.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: September 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yang Jin Chun, 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) 482-5760.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In November 2014, the Department initiated 1 and the ITC instituted 2 a five-year sunset review of the AD order on diamond sawblades from the PRC pursuant to sections 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the AD order be revoked, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act.3

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 65186 (November 3, 2014).

    2See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China; Termination of Previously Instituted Five-Year Review and Institution of Five-Year Review, 79 FR 65420 (November 4, 2014).

    3See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 12797 (March 11, 2015).

    On September 9, 2015, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD order on diamond sawblades from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) of the Act.4

    4See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China, 80 FR 54326 (September 9, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).

    Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order.

    Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. On October 11, 2011, the Department included the 6804.21.00.00 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).5

    5See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76128 (December 6, 2011).

    The tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 75l(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on diamond sawblades from the PRC. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The effective date of the continuation of the AD order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this continuation notice.

    This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23468 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE173 Notice of Availability of Community-Based Restoration Program Guidelines AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of Community-based Restoration Program Guidelines; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is seeking comment on revised guidelines for the Community-based Restoration Program (Program). Since guidelines were first issued in 2000, the Program has not only evolved alongside the field of habitat restoration but has been designed to more effectively support sustainable fisheries and contribute to the recovery and conservation of protected resources. These goals are aligned with NMFS' core mandates, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and Endangered Species Act. The Program has built a strong foundation of technical and financial assistance capabilities that enables NOAA to proactively identify and develop priority habitat restoration projects, build community-based partnerships to leverage resources, and implement technically sound restoration actions that have maximum impact on coastal and marine species and the ecosystems on which they depend. This document replaces previous guidelines and describes the Program's goals and scope of implementation for FY 2016 and beyond. This is not a solicitation of project proposals.

    DATES:

    Comments are due October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Additional information about the Program is available at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/programs/crp.html. Interested parties that wish to send comments may send an email to [email protected] Interested parties that wish to send comments through regular mail may use the following mailing address: NOAA Restoration Center (F/HC3), ATTN: CRP Guidelines, 1315 East West Highway, RM 14853, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tisa Shostik at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    NMFS started the Community-based Restoration Program (Program) in 1996 to provide technical and financial assistance to support the implementation of community-driven habitat restoration. The Program collaborates with partners to restore coastal wetlands, coral reef, shellfish, estuarine, and riverine habitat to benefit coastal and marine species under NMFS jurisdiction. Restoration implemented under the Program include projects such as dam removal and fish passage projects, hydrologic reconnection projects, shellfish and coral reef restoration projects. To date, the Program has implemented more than 1,700 habitat restoration projects in 37 states. It has restored more than 55,000 acres of habitat and opened 2,500 miles of rivers and streams.

    The Program is housed within the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation's Restoration Center and was authorized in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. Prior guidelines for the Program were provided at 65 FR 16890, March 30, 2000, and then revised at 73 FR 55816, September 26, 2008. Since the guidelines were last updated in 2008, base funding for the Program has remained relatively level, with the exception of several specific initiatives such as the Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration Grants funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Open Rivers Initiative (2007-2010).

    Program Guidelines a. Purpose of These Guidelines

    These guidelines provide information to the public and partnering organizations regarding the Program's scope and focus. The guidelines describe the broad range of the Program's activities and influence including, but not limited to, technical and financial assistance capabilities that are managed in a manner to most effectively advance the goals established under NMFS' core mandates. Previous published guidelines included more information on financial assistance mechanisms and procedures. These discussions have been removed from these updated guidelines in order to focus on the Program's goals, scope, and capabilities, rather than administrative process.

    b. Program Overview

    NMFS' primary goals under its core mandates include ensuring the productivity and sustainability of fisheries and recovering and conserving protected resources. Healthy ecosystems and the availability of habitat are critical to these resources and therefore restoring coastal, marine, and riverine habitat is an essential element of NMFS' strategy to achieve its primary goals. To support this strategy, the Program provides technical and financial assistance to identify, develop, implement, and evaluate community-driven habitat restoration projects that yield the greatest benefit to the resources under NMFS' jurisdiction. Program staff leads coordination efforts across NOAA and other Federal and non-Federal partners to identify shared habitat priorities and focus resource investments to increase the impact of habitat conservation and restoration actions. The Program's restoration specialists, including fish biologists, ecologists, and engineers, located throughout the country, provide comprehensive expertise to facilitate effective habitat restoration. To support project implementation through financial assistance, the Program primarily establishes cooperative agreement funding awards with non-Federal partners. Competitive solicitations are issued as Federal funding announcements on Grants.gov. Non-Federal partners may include non-governmental organizations, tribes, states, and local government agencies and communities.

    Habitat restoration projects implemented through the Program are developed in partnership with the communities in which they are based and reflect the needs and interests of local stakeholders. As restoration is conducted using a collaborative, ecosystem approach, projects such as dam removal, floodplain reconnection, and coastal wetland restoration often result in multiple benefits beyond the Program's primary goals. These benefits may include increased coastal resiliency, improved infrastructure, enhanced public safety, increased recreational opportunities, and strengthened coastal economies. The Program also fosters natural resource stewardship and local community engagement by supporting outreach, education, or volunteer opportunities as restoration project components.

    c. Program Activities and Priorities

    The Program will continue to support projects featuring all aspects of coastal habitat restoration, conservation, and protection that recover threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, sustain or help rebuild fish stocks managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or benefit other coastal and marine species with a connection to NMFS management. Within this broad authority, the Program is focusing its efforts to more effectively achieve NMFS' species recovery and fisheries sustainability goals, as well as demonstrate the results and multiple benefits of the Program's investments. Focused and coordinated approaches are critical because funding for coastal habitat restoration remains insufficient to fully address the needs of all habitat-limited coastal and marine species. To help set priorities and inform strategic decisions on where and how the Program targets its efforts, Program staff coordinates across NOAA and develops key partnerships with other Federal agencies, tribes, states, counties, local communities, and other non-governmental organizations. This leadership and collaboration helps set shared priorities and goals, and increases the impact of the Program's coastal restoration funding by leveraging resources and coordinating investments from multiple habitat restoration and conservation organizations and programs involved in habitat conservation and restoration.

    To execute the Program's targeted habitat restoration goals, the Program may focus its technical assistance and funding on specific geographic areas, habitats, restoration techniques, actions identified in protected species recovery plans or fishery management plans, or where NOAA and partner resources are aligned to yield a greater collective impact. The Program will provide restoration project funding to non-Federal partners through open, competitive solicitations announced through Federal Funding Opportunities (FFOs). The Program's targeted goals and priorities will be explicitly outlined within each FFO and applications will be evaluated on how well the proposed activity meets those priorities. Funding may be provided through cooperative agreements for restoration planning and feasibility studies, engineering and design, implementation and construction, and monitoring and evaluation efforts.

    In addition to providing funds for restoration projects, the Program provides leadership and technical expertise to foster the development and implementation of habitat restoration actions that support the recovery of protected species and sustainability of fisheries. To most effectively meet these core mandate goals, Program staff proactively identifies restoration opportunities, coordinates with other entities to help drive investments towards the highest priorities, and develops solutions to overcome obstacles to restoration success. Program staff provides technical expertise to ensure that restoration partners have the necessary support to successfully carry out complex habitat restoration activities such as dam removals and large-scale hydrologic reconnection projects. The technical assistance that Program staff provides to restoration project partners includes guidance on project feasibility assessments, engineering and design, project implementation oversight, regulatory compliance, and monitoring planning. The Program also accelerates the delivery of resources and implementation of restoration by streamlining permitting and environmental compliance processes when possible through the development and use of programmatic approaches. These core technical and financial assistance capabilities enable the Program to efficiently support the implementation of other targeted habitat conservation and restoration initiatives within NOAA.

    As the practice of habitat restoration has developed, the Program has contributed to its advancement through targeted implementation and effectiveness monitoring and technology transfer. Monitoring carried out by the Program has supported science-based decision making and led to improvements in the design and implementation of habitat restoration projects. To evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions in a cost-effective way, the Program is establishing consistent processes for monitoring and evaluating the performance of individual and collective restoration actions. The Program collects and reports this information in a manner that will inform future projects and investments, and ultimately improve the performance of the Program. The Program also facilitates increased public access to monitoring and evaluation data by implementing NOAA's Data Sharing Policy for Grants and Cooperative Agreements issued in 2012 which requires that all NOAA grantees share data produced under NOAA grants and cooperative agreements. Program staff works with cooperative agreement recipients to develop a data sharing plan as part of their cooperative agreement award narrative.

    d. Funding Sources, Mechanisms, and Eligible Participants

    As described in the prior sections, providing financial assistance is a tool that the Program uses to accomplish habitat restoration, complemented by the Program's leadership, coordination, and technical assistance capabilities. Financial assistance is provided competitively through FFO announcements and awarded and managed following the Department of Commerce Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual and 2 CFR part 200. The Program primarily establishes cooperative agreement awards with selected applicants based on a competitive, technical review process to maximize opportunities for public access to Program resources. In limited circumstances, contracts may also be awarded. All domestic applicants other than individuals may apply for financial assistance. Activities that constitute legally required mitigation or are required by federal, state, or local law or court order are not part of the Program.

    e. Reporting

    The Program uses a specific reporting format that has received Paperwork Reduction Act clearance. The progress report format assists recipients of Program funding in tracking their progress towards self-defined milestones and performance measures. Progress reports may also include monitoring and evaluation results. The Program-specific form also helps the Program populate a project tracking database, which supports agency-wide performance measure reporting and provides public information through the Restoration Atlas at www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/restorationatlas.

    f. Regulatory Compliance

    The Program assists its restoration partners and financial assistance recipients in completing their regulatory compliance responsibilities when possible, and may serve as lead agency for consultation and analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable federal laws and regulations. The Program takes a programmatic approach to regulatory compliance when available. A current list of programmatic compliance documents that may be used to fulfill regulatory compliance responsibilities can be found at http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/funding/applicantresources.html.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23503 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation, Planning, Protection, or Restoration.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0459.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 51.

    Average Hours per Response: Plans, 120 hours to develop, 35 hours to revise or update; project application and checklist, 20 hours; semi-annual and annual reporting, 5 hours each.

    Burden Hours: 1,410.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The FY 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion, and to issue guidelines for this program delineating the criteria for grant awards. The guidelines establish procedures for eligible applicants who choose to participate in the program to use when developing state conservation plans, proposing or soliciting projects under this program, applying for funds, and carrying out projects under this program in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of the program. Guidelines for the CELCP can be found on NOAA's Web site at: http://www.coast.noaa.gov/czm/landconservation/ or may be obtained upon request via the contact information listed above. The CELCP was reauthorized in under P.L. 111-111, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, as a component of the Coastal Zone Management Act. NOAA also has, or is given, additional authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act, annual appropriations or other authorities, to issue funds to coastal states, localities or other recipients for planning, conservation, acquisition, protection, restoration, or construction projects. The required information enables NOAA to implement the CELCP, under its current or future authorization, and facilitate the review of similar projects under different, but related, authorities.

    Affected Public: State, local or tribal government; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: One time, semi-annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23451 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE199 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 (Council) will hold a four-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, October 5-8, 2015, starting at 8:30 a.m. daily.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Galveston Island Hotel, 5400 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77551; telephone: (409) 744-5000; fax: (409) 740-2209.

    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:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Monday, October 5, 2015

    The Gulf Council will begin with updates and presentations from management committees. The Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Management Committee will review the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment—Management Strategy Evaluation, and receive a presentation on NOAA's Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management Policy. The Joint Administrative Policy & Budget/Personnel Management Committee will review the new Advisory Panels (AP) Staggered Terms, modifications to the standard operating practices and procedures (SOPPs) section discussing AP Appointments, Administrative Committee structure, and review of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Bills. The Mackerel Management Committee will convene after lunch to review the Joint Public Hearing Draft for CMP Amendment 26: Changes in Allocations, Stock Boundaries and Sale Provisions for Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Migratory Groups of King Mackerel, and an Options Paper for CMP Amendment 28: Separating Permits for Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Migratory Groups of King Mackerel and Spanish Mackerel. The Data Collection Committee will then review the Public Hearing Draft—Joint Electronic Charter Vessel Reporting Amendment; and the Gulf SEDAR Committee will review the SEDAR Steering Committee meeting and SEDAR Assessment Schedule.

    Tuesday, October 6, 2015

    The Reef Fish Management Committee will provide updates from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Reef Fish Advisory Panel (AP) meetings. The committee will discuss final action on Framework Action to set Gag Recreational Season and Gag and Black Grouper Minimum Size Limits, review options papers for Amendment to Define Gulf of Mexico Hogfish Stock and set Acceptable Catch Limits (ACL) and Status Determination Criteria and Framework Action to set Mutton Snapper ACL and management measures, and the revised Public Hearing Draft Amendment 39—Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper. The committee will also review options papers for Adjust Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) and South Florida Management Issues; discussion on the Ad Hoc Private Recreational AP. NMFS will hold a Question and Answer session immediately following the committee.

    Wednesday, October 7, 2015

    The Reef Fish Management Committee will continue with any remaining agenda items from the previous day. Shrimp Management Committee will review the Public Hearing Draft for Shrimp Amendment 17A—Addressing the Expiration of the Shrimp Permit Moratorium and the Draft Options Paper for Shrimp Amendment 17B—Establishing Optimum Yield, Target Number of Permits, Permit Pool, and Addressing Transit Provisions through Federal Waters.

    The Full Council will convene mid-morning with a Call to Order, Announcements and Introductions; Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes. The Council will review and approve the 2016 Committee Appointments. After lunch, the Council will receive presentations on the Southeast Observer Program and the Standardized Reporting Bycatch Methods; and review of Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) Applications, if any. The Council will receive Public Comment (2:30 p.m.-5 p.m.) on Final Action on Framework Action to Set Gag Recreational Season and Gag and Black Grouper Minimum Size Limits; followed by open testimony on any other fishery issues or concerns.

    Thursday, October 8, 2015

    The Council will receive management committee reports from Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem, Administrative Policy & Budget/Personnel, Mackerel, Data Collection, Shrimp and SEDAR. Upon returning from lunch, the Council will receive a committee report from the Reef Fish Management Committee; vote on Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) Applications, if any, and discuss Other Business.

    Meeting Adjourns

    Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23461 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: NMFS Observer Programs' Information That Can be Gathered Only Through Questions.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0593.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 3,699.

    Average Hours per Response: 51 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 27,238.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) deploys fishery observers on United States (U.S.) commercial fishing vessels and to fish processing plants in order to collect biological and economic data. NMFS has at least one observer program in each of its five Regions. These observer programs provide the most reliable and effective method for obtaining information that is critical for the conservation and management of living marine resources. Observer programs primarily obtain information through direct observations by employees or agents of NMFS; and such observations are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). However, observer programs also collect the following information that requires clearance under the PRA: (1) Standardized questions of fishing vessel captains/crew or fish processing plant managers/staff, which include gear and performance questions, safety questions, and trip costs, crew size and other economic questions; (2) questions asked by observer program staff/contractors to plan observer deployments; (3) forms that are completed by observers and that fishing vessel captains are asked to review and sign; (4) questionnaires to evaluate observer performance; and (5) a form to certify that a fisherman is the permit holder when requesting observer data from the observer on the vessel. NMFS seeks to renew OMB PRA clearance for these information collections.

    The information collected will be used to: (1) Monitor catch and bycatch in federally managed commercial fisheries; (2) understand the population status and trends of fish stocks and protected species, as well as the interactions between them; (3) determine the quantity and distribution of net benefits derived from living marine resources; (4) predict the biological, ecological, and economic impacts of existing management action and proposed management options; and (5) ensure that the observer programs can safely and efficiently collect the information required for the previous four uses. In particular, these biological and economic data collection programs contribute to legally mandated analyses required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), as well as a variety of state statutes. The confidentiality of the data will be protected as required by the MSA, Section 402(b).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23450 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE194 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 41 Pre-Assessment webinar for South Atlantic red snapper and gray triggerfish.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 41 assessments of the South Atlantic stocks of red snapper and gray triggerfish will consist of a series of workshop and webinars: Data Workshops; an Assessment Workshop and webinars; and a Review Workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    A SEDAR 41 Pre-Assessment webinar will be held on Tuesday, October 6, 2015, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; www.sedarweb.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Pre-Assessment webinar are as follows: Participants will finalize data recommendations from the SEDAR 41 Data Workshop and provide early modeling advice.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23460 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE188 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Applications for three new scientific research permits and three permit renewals.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received six scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon and steelhead. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at: https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/preview_open_for_comment.cfm.

    DATES:

    Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to [email protected] (include the permit number in the subject line of the fax or email).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email: [email protected]). Permit application instructions are available from the address above, or online at https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice

    The following listed species are covered in this notice:

    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened Snake River (SR) fall-run; threatened SR spring/summer-run (spr/sum); endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run; threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR).

    Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened UCR; Threatened SR; threatened middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened LCR; threatened PS; threatened UWR.

    Sockeye salmon (O. nerka): Endangered SR.

    Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened Columbia River (CR).

    Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened LCR; threatened Oregon Coast (OC).

    Authority

    Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

    Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Applications Received Permit 1336-7R

    Port Blakely Farms (PBF) is seeking to renew its permit to take juvenile LCR Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, PS Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR steelhead, and PS steelhead in headwater streams in western Oregon and Washington. The purpose of the research is to evaluate factors limiting fish distribution and water quality in streams that cross land owned by PBF. The research would benefit listed salmonids by producing data to be used in conserving and restoring critical habitat. The researchers propose to capture (using backpack electrofishing and dipnetting), handle, and release juvenile fish. The PBF researchers do not intend to kill any fish being captured, but some may die as an unintentional result of the research activities.

    Permit 15486-2R

    West Fork Environmental is seeking to renew its permit to capture and handle juvenile UCR Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, PS Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, OC coho salmon, UCR steelhead, LCR steelhead, UWR steelhead, and PS steelhead during the course of headwater stream surveys over wide parts of Oregon and Washington. The purpose of the research is to provide owners of industrial forest lands and state lands managers with accurate maps of where threatened and endangered salmonids are found on state and industrial forest lands. The work would benefit the salmon and steelhead by helping land managers plan and carry out their activities in ways that would have the smallest effect possible on the listed fish. The fish would be captured using backpack electrofishing equipment and released without tagging or even handling more than is necessary to ensure that they have recovered from the effects of being captured. The West Fork Environmental researchers do not intend to kill any listed salmonids, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 16784-2R

    Hart Crowser, Inc. is seeking to renew a one-year scientific research permit to take juvenile SR fall Chinook salmon, SR spr/sum Chinook salmon, UCR Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, CR chum salmon, LCR coho, SR sockeye salmon, SR steelhead, UCR steelhead, MCR steelhead, LCR steelhead, and UWR steelhead. The objective of the research is to study the degree to which juvenile salmonids may be getting stranded by ship wakes along the lower Columbia River between river miles 21 and 102. The researchers would investigate the potential for stranding at approximately 24 “high risk” sites. The researchers would also evaluate whether the strategic placement of dredged material could reduce the risk of stranding. The research would benefit the listed species by helping river managers determine the likelihood of juvenile stranding along the lower river and investigate potential means for reducing it. Hart Crowser, Inc. would use beach seines to capture, handle, and release juvenile fish. Researchers may also collect stranded fish and return them to the river. Hart Crowser, Inc. does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.

    Permit 19587

    The Columbia River Estuary Study (CREST) is requesting a three-year scientific research permit to take LCR Chinook salmon, CR chum salmon, and LCR coho salmon. The objective of the research is to study the effectiveness of habitat restoration in Meglar Creek, Washington. The research would evaluate fish passage and habitat use in Meglar Creek and the Columbia River nearshore environment at the mouth of Meglar Creek. The CREST researchers would capture fish with a trap net. A portion of the juvenile Chinook and coho salmon would be anesthetized and tagged with passive integrated transponder tags (PIT-tags). The research would benefit listed salmonids by determining how effectively currently altered habitats support salmonids and using that information to guide future habitat modifications. CREST does not intend to kill any listed fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

    Permit 19690

    The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is seeking a five-year permit to take adult SR spr/sum Chinook, SR sockeye, and SR steelhead at a location approximately one mile upstream from the confluence of the Lemhi and Salmon Rivers in Idaho. Under the permit, they would trap adult Chinook and steelhead at a temporary weir, measure and tag them with PIT-tags, and monitor their movements in the Lemhi Valley with the purpose of determining the animals' response to habitat improvements throughout the subbasin. All adult sockeye salmon captured at the weir would simply be handled and released without being tagged. The weir would operate in 12-hour increments (checked at least twice daily), and all fish to be tagged would be anesthetized before the process, and allowed to recover afterwards; they would then be released back to the river upstream from the weir. The researchers would also collect scale and tissue samples from a number of fish for DNA analysis. The research is intended to form an integral part of an ongoing program that intensively monitors a number of ecological parameters in the Lemhi watershed. The weir operation would allow greater resolution of both adult return numbers and fish movement in the area, and it would feed that data into the information stream being generated by the overall program. The research would benefit the fish by providing new information that managers can use to (1) evaluate and monitor steelhead and Chinook status in the region, and (2) design and deploy increasingly effective habitat restoration actions throughout the fishes' range. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the listed fish, but a few may die as an inadvertent result of the planned activities.

    Permit 19741

    The Yakama Nation is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile, natural MCR steelhead during the course of a research project designed to assess their current abundance in the Rock Creek watershed in south central Washington. Under the permit, the researchers would employ backpack electrofishing to capture a number of juvenile MCR steelhead. Some of those fish would be tagged with PIT-tags, and some would be tissue-sampled, but most would simply be handled and released. The researchers would work primarily in five reference areas (reaches) and they would use mark/recapture techniques to study juvenile development and movement in Rock Creek. They would also conduct some boat electrofishing in the inundated pool downstream from the research area in Rock Creek—primarily to look at predator abundance. In addition, the researchers would take tissue samples from dead adults during spawning ground surveys. The purpose of the research is to assess the current distribution and relative abundance of MCR steelhead in selected portions of Rock Creek. That information would be integrated with information being collected on other ecological parameters and the researches would use that information as a whole to determine species status in the system and evaluate the effectiveness of several habitat restoration actions that have been going on there for a number of years. This research would benefit listed steelhead in that it would be used by fish managers such as the Rock Creek Subbasin Recovery Planning Group to prioritize to plan restoration, protection, and recovery actions for Rock Creek steelhead.

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23454 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE192 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet Monday, October 5, 2015, through Tuesday, October 13, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Monday, October 5, 2015 through Tuesday, October 13, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 W. 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific locations.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. in the Aleutian Room on Wednesday, October 7, continuing through Tuesday, October 13, 2015. The Scientific Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the King Salmon/Iliamna Room on Monday, October 5 and continue through Wednesday, October 7, 2015. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Dillingham/Katmai Room on Tuesday, October 6, and continue through Saturday, October 10, 2015. The Enforcement Committee will meet on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 (room and time to be determined). The Legislative Committee will meet on Tuesday, October 6, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. (room to be determined).

    Agenda Monday, October 5, 2015 Through Tuesday, October 13, 2015

    Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

    (1) Executive Director's Report (including Halibut Management Framework Outline, and Halibut Deck Sorting) (2) NMFS Management Report (including update on non-fishing habitat issues, litigation updates) (3) ADF&G Report (including BOF proposals) (4) USCG Report (5) USFWS Report (6) Protected Species Report (7) BSAI Crab SAFE/Specifications for 6 stocks (8) Proposed Groundfish Harvest Specifications (9) Pribilof Canyon Corals: Receive Report/Next Steps (10) AI Pacific cod Allocation: Final Action (11) EM Workgroup recommendation for 2016 Pre-implementation (12) Observer Program 2016 Annual Deployment Plan: Review (13) Observer Coverage on BSAI Trawl CVs: Initial Review (14) GOA Trawl Bycatch Management: Review Paper (15) 100% Observer Coverage for GOA Trawl: Discussion paper (16) GOA Salmon PSC Reapportionment: Preliminary Review (17) WAI Golden King Crab Partial Offloads: Final Action

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23459 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 10/19/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 6/26/2015 (80 FR 36773-36774) and 8/4/2015 (80 FR 46250), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7930-00-NIB-0717—Floor Finish/Sealer, Black, Water-Based, Slip-Resistant, Asphalt Floors, 5 Gal. Can 7930-00-NIB-0675—Floor Finish/Sealer, Black, Water-Based, Slip-Resistant, Asphalt Floors, 4/1 Gal. Bottles Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Mandatory Purchase For: Broad Government Requirement Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: B-List Service Service Type: Janitorial and Related Service Service Mandatory For: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 1 La Puntilla Street; San Juan, PR Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Corporate Source, Inc., New York, NY Contracting Activity: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Border Enforcement Contracting Division Deletions

    On 8/7/2015 (80 FR 47475) and 9/4/2015 (80 FR 53501-53502), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Rebuilding Auto Components Service Service Mandatory For: Location Unknown Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Inc., New York, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Warehousing Service Service Mandatory For: Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, HI Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Trace, Inc., Boise, ID Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23442 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 10/19/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1670-01-F05-1124-T-11R Parachute Insert, Army Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Chautauqua County Chapter, NYSARC, Jamestown, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-644-9620-Gaiter, FREE, Army, Army Tan Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: NYSARC, Inc., Seneca-Cayuga Counties Chapter, Waterloo, NY Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the US Army Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QK ACC-APG Natick, Natick, MA Distribution: C-List Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23441 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Meeting cancellation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published a notice in the Federal Register of July 27, 2015, (80 FR 44335), concerning a two-session public hearing and open meeting on August 26, 2015, at the Three Rivers Convention Center, 7016 West Grandridge Boulevard, Kennewick, Washington 99352. The Board corrected that notice in the Federal Register of August 28, 2015, (80 FR 52265), by postponing the Session II open meeting and supplementing the Session I hearing. The Board has now voted to cancel, in lieu of postponing, the Session II open meeting portion of the proceeding. The vote record for the cancellation of the open meeting will be posted on the Board's public Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23547 Filed 9-16-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Hawaii Clean Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Hawaii Clean Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Hawaii Clean Energy Final PEIS or Final PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0459). The PEIS, which is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with 31 energy efficiency activities and renewable energy technologies that could be implemented to assist the State of Hawaii in meeting the goals established under the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI).

    ADDRESSES:

    The Department encourages interested parties to access the Final PEIS electronically. It is posted at http://hawaiicleanenergypeis.com and http://energy.gov/nepa/eis-0459-hawaii-clean-energy-programmatic-environmental-impact-statement.

    CDs and printed copies are available for viewing at:

    • Hawaii State Library, 478 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 • Lanai Public and School Library, 555 Fraser Ave., Lanai City, HI 96763 • Wailuku Public Library, 251 High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 • Molokai Public Library, 15 Ala Malama, Kaunakakai, HI 96748 • Hilo Public Library, 300 Waianuenue Ave., Hilo, HI 96720. • Kailua-Kona Public Library, 75-138 Hualalai Road, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740. • Lihue Public Library, 4344 Hardy Street, Lihue, HI 96766

    The Hawaii State Energy Office will provide a printed copy of the Summary or complete Final PEIS to individuals who cannot access the document online or from a CD. If a printed copy is required, send an email request to [email protected], or call 808-587-3807.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on the Hawaii Clean Energy Final PEIS, contact Dr. Jane Summerson at [email protected] or the Hawaii State Energy Office at 808-587-3807. For general information regarding the DOE NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; email to [email protected], call 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    DOE and Hawaii entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2008 that established a long-term partnership to transform the way in which energy efficiency and renewable energy resources are planned and used in the State. The MOU established working groups to address key sectors of the energy economy (e.g., electricity, end-use efficiency, transportation, and fuels), which led to the establishment of the HCEI. When it was established, HCEI set a goal of meeting 70 percent of Hawaii's energy needs by 2030 through energy efficiency and renewable energy (collectively “clean energy”). DOE has helped advance Hawaii's clean energy goals by providing technical research and analysis, staff involvement, and funding. In September 2014, DOE and the State of Hawaii signed another MOU to reaffirm their commitment to the HCEI.

    Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The purpose and need for DOE's action is based on the 2008 and 2014 MOUs with the State of Hawaii that established the long-term HCEI partnership. Consistent with these MOUs, DOE's purpose and need is to support the State of Hawaii in its efforts to meet 70 percent of the State's energy needs by 2030 through clean energy.

    DOE's primary purpose in preparing this PEIS, which is not required under NEPA, is to provide information to the public, Federal and State agencies, and future energy developers on the potential environmental impacts of a wide range of energy efficiency activities and renewable energy technologies that could be used to support the HCEI. This environmental information could be used by decisionmakers, developers, and regulators in determining the best activities and technologies to meet future energy needs. The public could use this PEIS to better understand the types of potential impacts associated with the various technologies.

    Proposed Action

    DOE's Proposed Action is to develop guidance that it can use in making decisions about future funding or other actions to support the State of Hawaii in achieving the HCEI's goal.

    For the Hawaii Clean Energy PEIS, DOE and the State of Hawaii identified 31 clean energy technologies and activities associated with potential future actions and grouped them into five clean energy categories:

    • Energy efficiency,

    • Distributed renewable energy technologies,

    • Utility-scale renewable energy technologies,

    • Alternative vehicle fuels and modes, and

    • Electrical transmission and distribution.

    For each activity or technology, the PEIS identifies potential impacts to 17 environmental resource areas and potential best management practices that could be used to minimize or prevent those potential environmental impacts.

    On April 18, 2014, DOE published in the Federal Register its notice of availability for the Hawaii Clean Energy Draft PEIS (79 FR 21909). DOE's NOA invited the public to comment on the Draft PEIS during a 90-day period that ended on July 17, 2014. DOE held public hearings in Lihue, Kailua-Kona, Hilo, Kahului, Kaunakakai, Lanai City, Honolulu, and Kaneohe from May 12 to May 22, 2014. Comments received during the public comment period were addressed in a “Comment-Response Document,” which is Chapter 9 of the Final PEIS. Comments received after the close of the comment period also were considered. DOE does not expect to issue a record of decision.

    Issued in Washington, DC, September 10, 2015. Meghan M. Conklin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, National Electricity Delivery Division, Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability, Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23414 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2211-008] Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.; Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On September 2, 2015, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (transferor) filed an application for transfer of license of the Markland Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2211 to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (transferee). The project is located on the Ohio River in Switzerland County, Indiana.

    Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. is an indirect subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation. To modernize and simplify Duke Energy Corporation's structure, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. intends to convert to an LLC, (Duke Energy Indiana, LLC). Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. seeks Commission approval to transfer the license for the Markland Hydroelectric Project to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC in association with the conversion, effective on the date Duke Energy Indiana, LLC submits certified copies of its articles of conversion, plan of conversion, and limited liability company operating agreement to the Commission.

    Applicant Contact: For Applicant: Mr. Garry S. Rice, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone: 704-382-8111, Email: [email protected] and John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston & Strawn LLP, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817, Phone: 202-282-5766, Email: [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, comments, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at

    [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2211-008.

    Dated: September 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23424 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting September 24, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via Web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/index.jsp.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102. ISO New England Inc., et al., Docket Nos. ER13-1957, et al. ISO New England Inc., Docket Nos. ER13-193 and ER13-196. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER14-2059. New York Power Authority, Docket No. ER15-2012. New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected]

    Dated: September 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23423 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1293-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Complaince Revisions in Docket No. ER15-1293—Attachment AE to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5038.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1405-001.

    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing re Settlement to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1918-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing in ER15-1918—Transmission Owner Selection Process Revisions to be effective 8/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2219-001.

    Applicants: EONY Generation Limited.

    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to 20 to be effective 7/17/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2376-001.

    Applicants: Energy Power Investment Company, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to MBR application to be effective 9/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2641-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee, Eversource Energy Service Company (as agent).

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: CTS to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 9/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150910-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2642-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-09-10_Planning Coordinator Agreement with CCSF and CEII Request to be effective 11/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150910-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2643-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement to be effective 11/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2644-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Florida—Southern TIAA Concurrence Filing to be effective 10/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2645-000.

    Applicants: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015 normal Sep to be effective 9/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2646-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2158R5 AECC NITSA and NOA Notice of Cancellation to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150911-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/15.

    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: September 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23421 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EF15-10-000] Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 3, 2015 the Western Area Power Administration submitted a tariff filing: Rate Adjustment for Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects Firm Power (Colorado River Storage Project Transmission and Ancillary Services—Rate Order No. WAPA-169) to be effective October 1, 2015.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2015.

    Dated: September 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23428 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-95-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement Project, proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in the above-referenced docket. Columbia requests authorization to replace about 34 miles of bare steel pipe within Columbia's existing Line 1570 pipeline in three replacement segments spanning Allegheny, Washington, and Greene Counties (i.e., the Tri-County), Pennsylvania. The Project is part of Columbia's modernization program to replace segments of existing, aging, infrastructure in order to improve the safety of its pipeline system and increase service reliability.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The proposed Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement Project includes replacing 34 miles of 20-inch-diameter bare steel piping with coated steel pipeline at the following locations:

    • Segment 1: replace approximately 14 miles with 14.9 miles from the Hero Valve to Waynesburg Compressor Station in Greene County.

    • Segment 2: replace approximately 8 miles with 10.7 miles from the Redd Farm Station to Sharp Farm Station in Washington County.

    • Segment 3: replace approximately 12 miles with 11.9 miles from the Sharp Farm Station in Washington County to the Walker Farm Station in Washington and Allegheny Counties.

    Total construction length with the incorporation of minor reroutes is approximately 34 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipe. The pipeline would also include associated appurtenant facilities including bi-directional pig launcher/receivers, cathodic protection, main line valves, and taps.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before October 14, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-95-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at 202-502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-95). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23426 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff Notice of Alleged Violations

    Take notice 1 that in a nonpublic investigation pursuant to 18 CFR part 1b, the staff of the Office of Enforcement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has preliminarily determined that Coaltrain Energy LP; its co-owners Peter Jones and Shawn Sheehan; traders Robert Jones, Jeff Miller, and Jack Wells; and analyst Adam Hughes violated the Commission's Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 CFR 1c.2 (2015), by devising and executing a scheme involving manipulative Up-To Congestion trading in PJM Regional Transmission Organization between June and September 2010. The Office of Enforcement has also preliminarily determined that Coaltrain violated 18 CFR 35.41(b) (2015) by making false statements and omitting material information during the investigation.

    1Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations, and Orders, 129 FERC ¶ 61,247 (2009), order on reh'g, 134 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2011).

    During the period of interest, Peter Jones and Shawn Sheehan were the principal owners of Coaltrain, and they along with Jeff Miller, Robert Jones, Jack Wells, and Adam Hughes devised and implemented the relevant trades in PJM. Staff alleges that the individuals (on behalf of Coaltrain) planned and executed Up-To Congestion transactions in PJM that were designed to falsely appear to be spread trades but that were in fact a vehicle to collect certain payments (called “Marginal Loss Surplus Allocation,” or MLSA) from PJM. Staff alleges that through these trades, Coaltrain sought not to profit from changes in price spreads but rather to profit by clearing large volumes of Up-To Congestion transactions with the goal of collecting MLSA.

    Staff further alleges that during the investigation, Peter Jones, Shawn Sheehan, and their agents (on behalf of Coaltrain) made false statements and omitted material information in responding to deposition questions and data requests.

    This Notice does not confer a right on third parties to intervene in the investigation or any other right with respect to the investigation.

    Dated: September 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23429 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-14-001] Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project, proposed by Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) in the above-referenced docket. Texas Gas requests authorization to deliver approximately 53.5 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas from its existing Robards Junction facilities in Henderson County, Kentucky to one of Texas Gas' customers in Posey County, Indiana.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Louisville District participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by a proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.

    The proposed Southern Indiana Market Lateral Project includes the following facilities:

    • About 30.6 miles of 10-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline lateral;

    • one new meter and regulator station;

    • one pig 1 launcher; and

    1 A “pig” is a tool that is inserted into and moves through the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal inspections, or other purposes.

    • one mainline valve.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before October 14, 2015.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP15-14-001) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).2 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    2 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-14). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23425 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-2-000] UIF GP, LLC; Notice of Supplement To Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on September 11, 2015, UIF GP, LLC (UIF or Petitioner) submitted a supplement to its October 3, 2014 filed petition for declaratory order (petition) requesting that the Commission (1) disclaim jurisdiction over UIF, which acquired passive, non-managing Class A-1 ownership interests and passive, non-managing Class B ownership interests in Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC (Neptune) as a public utility and (2) disclaim jurisdiction over future UIF transfers of the Class A-1 interests or Class B interests in Neptune, as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 24, 2015.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23422 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-548-000] ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on September 2, 2015, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP15-548-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to abandon two compressor units and associated appurtenances at its Patterson Compressor Station (Patterson CS) located in Mary Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, ANR Pipeline Company, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, at (832) 320-5685 or by email at [email protected]

    Specifically, ANR proposes to abandon in place two Clark HRA-6 compressor units, rated at 1,000 horsepower (hp) each. ANR states that the subject compressor units have not been utilized to serve any ANR customer in the past year.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link.

    Dated: September 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23427 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635; FRL-9934-34-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting; October 2015 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 6, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 7, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and will continue on Thursday, October 8, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time. Attendees must register online by September 25, 2015. Requests for the draft agenda or for presenting written or oral statements at the meeting will be accepted up to October 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the EPA's Main Campus Facility, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635.

    Fax: Fax comments to: (202) 566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635.

    Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635. Note: this is not a mailing address. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Megan Fleming, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6604; or via email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General Information: The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in attending the meeting must register by September 25, 2015, online at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-bosc-chemical-safety-for-sustainability-subcommittee-tickets-17480477579. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the meeting, or presenting written or oral statements at the meeting should contact Megan Fleming, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    For security purposes, all attendees must go through a metal detector, sign in with the security desk, and show government-issued photo identification to enter the building. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to allow sufficient time for security screening. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Overview of materials provided to the subcommittee; Overview of ORD's Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program; Overview of a small portion of ORD's Human Health Risk Assessment Research Program; Poster session; and Subcommittee discussion.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0635. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee Docket, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton 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 ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    Written Statements: Written statements for the public meeting should be received by Megan Fleming, DFO, via email at the contact information listed above by October 2, 2015. Written statements should be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS Power Point, or Rich Text format.

    Oral Statements: In general, each individual making an oral statement at the public meeting will be limited to a total of three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should also consider providing written comments so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Megan Fleming, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by October 2, 2015, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the BOSC meeting.

    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Megan Fleming at (202) 564-6604 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Megan Fleming, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 8, 2015. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23478 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0452; FRL-9933-46] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a July 28, 2015 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II. to voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the July 28, 2015 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    DATES:

    The cancellations are effective September 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donna Kamarei, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0443; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0452, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Product Cancellations EPA Registration No. Product name Chemical name 000499-00368 Whitmire PT 2000 Green-Shield Horticultural Algicide, Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 000499-00482 TC 192 1-Decanaminium, N-decyl-N,N-dimethyl-, chloride. 000499-00542 TC-287 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 000875-00109 Quat-256 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 000875-00187 D-Trol, Disinfectant, Sanitizer & Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001007-00098 Quat-A-Mone Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001203-00041 Delta Foremost 3066 ES Show-off Germicidal Concentrate Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001258-01269 Baquacil Premium Algaecide Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl(dimethylimino)-1,2-ethanediyl(dimethylimino)-1,2-ethanediyl dichloride). 001258-01335 Vantocil NR 3.8 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 001270-00184 Zep Lemonex Germicidal Detergent Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001270-00191 Zep Venture Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001270-00235 Zep Bowl Shine Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001677-00232 Lonza SQ Sanitizer/Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 001706-00177 Nalcon 7642 Dialkyl * methyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5% C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 001839-00101 CD 1.6 (D & F) Detergent/Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001839-00103 CD 3.2 (D & F) Detergent/Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 001839-00146 NP 1.8 D&F Detergent/Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 001839-00160 BTC 885 Thickened Phosphoric Acid Germicidal Bowl Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 002212-00016 Elimstaph No. 2 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 002296-00097 Bacti-Chem General Type Detergent Cleaner-Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 002296-00107 Lemon-Quat Disinfectant Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 002296-00108 Pine Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 002296-00109 Cherry-Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 002724-00517 Speer Germicidal Multi-Purpose Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14), Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 002724-00518 Magic Guard Disinfectant/Sanitizer/Deodorizer Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14), Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 002724-00519 Magic Guard Cleaner/Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 002724-00562 Magic Guard Lemon Odor Disinfectant-Deodorant-Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 002935-00548 Hyamine Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 003635-00278 X-Cell 420 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Dialkyl * methyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 003862-00075 Mint 7 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 003862-00185 Spur-Tex Disinfectant Cleaner-Deodorant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 004822-00370 S.C. Johnson Wax Toilet Duck Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 004822-00484 BD1 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 004822-00546 Dexter 1 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 004822-00577 Rut Disinfectant Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 005813-00031 Pine Sol Household Cleaner Disinfectant 1-Octanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride. 005813-00034 Pine-Sol Multi-purpose Cleaner Disinfectant 1-Octanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride. 005813-00035 Pine-Sol Presto 1-Octanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride. 005813-00059 Clorox Disinfecting Spray III Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 005813-00067 Clorox 409-R 1-Octanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride, Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 005813-00074 Clorox TLC 1-Octanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride, Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 005813-00088 Julia Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 005813-00097 Brac 1-Octanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride, and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00001 Barquat LB-50 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (65%C12, 25%C14, 10%C16). 006836-00011 Barquat OJ-50 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 006836-00031 Lonza Sanitizer-Cleaner 45-7 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00033 Lonza Formulation 70-12 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00035 Barquat MX-80 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00036 Barquat MX-50 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00047 Barquat OJ-10 Swimming Pool Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 006836-00055 Barquat MB 80-10 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00056 Barquat 42-10 Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00069 Lonza Barquat MX 80-10 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00076 Lonza Formulation S-23 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00079 205M Water Treatment Microbiocide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00080 Bardac 203-MP Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00082 Barquat OJ-80 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 006836-00096 Hyamine 10-X (Crystals) Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-(2-(2-(methyl-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenoxy)ethoxy)ethyl)-, chloride. 006836-00097 Benzethonium Chloride USP Germicide Concentrate Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-(2-(2-(4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenoxy)ethoxy)ethyl)-, chloride. 006836-00106 Hyamine 3500 W/E-80% Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00155 Bio-Quat 50-24 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (61%C12, 23%C14, 11%C16, 2.5%C18 2.5%C10 and trace of C8). 006836-00160 Bio Quat 50-35 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 006836-00161 Bio-Quat 80-24 for Manufacturing use only Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (61%C12, 23%C14, 11%C16, 2.5%C18 2.5%C10 and trace of C8). 006836-00166 Bio-Guard M-15 Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 006836-00170 Bio Quat T-501 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00171 Bio-Quat 80-28R Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 006836-00172 Bio-Quat 50-36 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00173 Bio Quat 50-28R Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 006836-00174 Bio Quat 80-36 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 006836-00175 Bio-Quat 80-35 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 006836-00183 Bio-Quat 50-60, Disinfectant, Fungicide, Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00186 Barquat 80-28RX Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00187 Bio Quat 80-42 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00188 Bio Quat 50-42 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00189 Bio Quat 50-30 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 006836-00190 Bio Quat 50-25 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (67%C12, 25%C14, 7%C16, 1%C8, C10, and C18). 006836-00191 Barquat 50-65 Decyl isononyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. 006836-00209 Bardac 2180 Decyl isononyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. 006836-00218 Bardac RW-10 Decyl isononyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. 006836-00219 Bardac CW-10 Decyl isononyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. 006836-00220 Bardac CW-50 Decyl isononyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. 006836-00221 Bardac RW-50 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00227 Lonza Formulation DC-800 Decyl isononyl dimethyl ammonium chloride. 006836-00228 Bardac 2150 LA Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00230 Jordaquat 350 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 006836-00244 CSP-46 Concentrate Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (67%C12, 25%C14, 7%C16, 1%C18). 006836-00285 BarquaT 50-65A Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00294 Bardac 255M Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00295 Bardac 288M Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00298 Barquat MB-40 Swimming Pool Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00301 Lonza Formulation FC-600 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 006836-00320 Lonza CQ Disinfectant Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 006943-00001 Kork Rub Cleaner Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 007364-00090 Pool-Pal 500 Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 008540-00003 Formula No. 30-A 1-Decanaminium, N-decyl-N,N-dimethyl-, chloride. 008540-00013 Garratt Callahan Formula 35 Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-(2-(2-(4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenoxy)ethoxy)ethyl)-, chloride. 008660-00061 Vertagreen Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (67%C12, 25%C14, 7%C16, 1%C18), and Dialkyl * methyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 008959-00036 Portatrine Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 009367-00005 Emulso Germicidal Bowl Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 009367-00045 Mint-O Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 009386-00014 AMA-3510 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 009688-00056 Deodorizing Disinfecting Cleaner I Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 009688-00057 Chemsico Spray Disinfectant I with Bacteriostatic Action Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 009688-00135 Chemsico Surface Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (61%C12, 23%C14, 11%C16, 5%C18). 010324-00002 Maquat LC12S-80% Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (95%C14, 3%C12, 2%C16). 010324-00121 Maquat 2855 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (95%C14, 3%C12, 2%C16). 010324-00135 Maquat MC1412-55% Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (65%C12, 25%C14, 10%C16). 010707-00008 Magnacide 408 Industrial Bactericide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 012204-00010 Marcicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 037265-00042 Pine Odor Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 037265-00049 Strike Bac Lemon Odor Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 045309-00017 Aquaclear Algaecide Formula-5 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 045309-00032 Free 'N Clear Swimming Pool Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Dialkyl * methyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 045309-00033 Free N' Clear 10 Swimming Pool Algaecide 1-Decanaminium, N-decyl-N,N-dimethyl-, chloride. 045309-00044 Swim Free Concentrated Poly-Cide II Algaecide for Swimming Pools Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 047000-00087 Super sweet Multi-Purpose Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 047371-00001 Formulation HS-32Q Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00006 Formulation HS-652Q Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00010 FMB 451-8 Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00011 FMB 451-5 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 047371-00013 FMB 6075-8 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 047371-00014 FMB 3328-8 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18). 047371-00015 FMB 6075-5 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 047371-00016 FMB 4500-5 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00018 FMB 451-28 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 047371-00019 FMB 3328-5 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 047371-00020 FMB 3328-28 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 047371-00022 FMB 4500-28 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00032 Formulation HS-8451P Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 047371-00035 Formulation HS-33A Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00046 SAK-64L Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 047371-00050 Huntington FMB 65-15 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 047371-00051 Lonza FMB-28 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00055 WTM-1210 Water Treatment Microbiocide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00061 FMB 1210-100 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 047371-00062 FMB 28-28 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 047371-00063 FMB 3328-D40 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 047371-00069 HS-65 Swimming Pool Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00070 Huntington FMB 504-5 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00073 FMB 504-8 Quat Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12). 047371-00085 FMB 28-15 Quat Concentrated Germicide Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 047371-00089 Formulation AE-90 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 047371-00092 HS-65 Winterizing Algicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00101 Formulation PA-1210 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00102 Formulation POQ 1210 Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C12, 30%C14, 17%C16, 3%C18), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 047371-00104 Formulation HS-3328 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00105 Formulation POQ-451 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 047371-00107 Formulation HS-65 Swimming Pool Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00149 PA-1210 Humidifier Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00153 Formulation POQ451 (1:32) Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00161 HS-451 Disinfectant/Sanitizer (50%) Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 047371-00181 WTM-1210 Microbicide (33%) Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 048181-00001 Hydrocide Germicide and Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 061282-00060 Tryad Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 063664-00001 QSP-451 Swimming Pool Algaecide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 25%C12, 15%C16). 067262-00015 Aqua Chem Balanced for Clean Pools Algaecide Liquid Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14), and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 067517-00017 Quaternary Disinfectant Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 067517-00019 Odor Control Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 067517-00039 Annihilator Cleaner/Disinfectant 1-Decanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride, and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 067619-00003 CPPC Spray 1 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 067619-00005 CPPC PS Spray 19054 1-Decanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octyl-, chloride, and Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 067619-00022 LEX Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 070627-00001 Spray Disinfectant HG Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 070627-00059 Antibacterial Scrubbing Bubbles Bathroom Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 070627-00064 Butcher's Bright Disinfectant Foam Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 070627-00065 Butcher's Clockwork Disinfectant Deodorizer Sanitizer Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 070627-00066 Butcher's Bath Guard Acid Free Disinfectant Bathroom Cleaner Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 074655-00003 Spectrum RX-36 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16). 074655-00015 Spectrum RX1000 Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12). 081002-00001 Chlorine Free Splashes Algicide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14). 090924-00008 Bactron K-86 Microbiocide Alkyl * dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride * (60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12), and Alkyl * dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride * (68%C12, 32%C14).

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 2—Registrants of Cancelled Products EPA company No. Company name and address 499 BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 875 Diversey, Inc., 8310 16th Street, Sturtevant, WI 53177. 1007 Zoetis, Inc., 333 Portage Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49007-4931. 1203 Delta Foremost Chemical Corp., 3915 Air Park Street, Memphis, TN 38118. 1258 Arch Chemicals, Inc., 1200 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway, Alpharetta, GA 30004. 1270 Zep, Inc., 1259 Seaboard Industrial Blvd. NW., Atlanta, GA 30318. 1677 Ecolab, Inc., 370 Wabasha Street North, St. Paul, MN 55102. 1706 Nalco Company, 370 N. Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102-1390. 1839 Stepan Company, 22 W. Frontage Rd., Northfield Rd., IL 60093. 2212 Walter G. Legge Company, Inc., 444 Central Avenue, Peekskill, NY 10566. 2296 National Chemical Laboratories, Inc., 401 N. 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19123. 2724 Wellmark International, 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumburg, IL 60173. 2935 Wilbur-Ellis Company, 2903 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93725. 3635 Dubois Chemicals, Inc., 3630 E. Kemper Road, Cincinnati, OH 45241. 3862 ABC Compounding Co., Inc., P.O. Box 16247, Atlanta, GA 30321-0247. 4822 S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 1525 Howe Street, Racine, WI 53403. 5813 The Clorox Co., C/O PS&RC, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0803. 6836 Lonza, Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 6943 Tate Soaps & Surfactants, Inc., P.O. Box 2543, Kokomo, IN 46904-2543. 7364 GLB Pool & Spa, 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 8540 Garratt-Callahan Co., 50-Ingold Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 8660 United Industries Corp., P.O. Box 142642, St. Louis, MO 63114-0642. 8959 Applied Biochemists, 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 9367 Theo Chem Laboratories, Inc., 7373 Rowlett Park Drive, Tampa, FL 33610-1141. 9386 Kemira Chemicals, Inc., 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30339. 9688 Chemsico, One Rider Trail Plaza Drive, Suite 300, Earth City, MO 63045, Lithia Springs, GA 30122. 10324 Mason Chemical Company, 723 W. Algonquin Rd., Suite B, Arlington Heights, IL 60005. 10707 Baker Petrolite, LLC., 12645 West Airport Blvd., Sugar Land, TX 77478. 12204 Mid-American Research Chemical Corp., P.O. Box 927, Columbus, NE 68602-0927. 37265 Genlabs, 5568 Schaefer Avenue, Chino, CA 91710. 45309 Aqua Clear Industries, LLC., P.O. Box 2456, Suwanee, GA 30024-0980. 47000 Chem-tech, LTD., 4515 Fleur Drive #303, Des Moines, IA 50321. 47371 H & S Chemicals Division, 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 48181 Hydrox Laboratories, 825 Tollgate Rd., Elgin, IL 60123. 63664 Quality Swimming Pool Products Division, 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 67262 Recreational Water Products, Inc., P.O. Box 1449, Buford, GA 30515-1449. 67517 PM Resources, Inc., 3200 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76137. 67619 Clorox Professional Products Co. C/O PS&RC, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0803. 70627 Diversey, Inc., 8310 16th Street, Sturtevant, WI 53177. 74655 Solenis, LLC., 7910 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100, Jacksonville, FL 32256. 81002 Splashes, Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 90924 Nalco Champion, 370 Wabasha Street North, St. Paul, MN 55102-1390. III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the July 28, 2015 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

    IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is September 18, 2015. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.

    V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of July 28, 2015 [(80 FR 44953) (FRL-9930-15)]. The comment period closed on August 27, 2015.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

    B. For Products 10324-00002, 10324-00121, and 10324-00135

    The registrant has requested to the Agency via letter to sell existing stocks for an 18-month period for products 10324-00002, 10324-00121, and 10324-00135. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of products 10324-00002, 10324-00121, and 10324-00135, EPA anticipates allowing the registrant to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products until March 20, 2017. Thereafter, the registrant is prohibited from selling or distributing these products listed in Table 1, except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products 10324-00002, 10324-00121, and 10324-00135 until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    B. For All Other Products Identified in Table 1 of Unit II

    The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of all other products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until September 19, 2016, which is 1-year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing all other products listed in Table 1, except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of all other products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 9, 2015. Steve Knizner, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23473 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013; FRL-9934-37-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Protection AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Protection” (EPA ICR No. 1816.06, OMB Control No. 2040-0197) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described in this renewal notice. This is a proposed extension of the existing ICR, which is approved through December 31, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013, on-line using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to the OW Docket at [email protected] or by mail to the Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanities, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Hall, Drinking Water Protection Division—Prevention Branch, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-3883; fax number: 202-564-3756; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: EPA is collecting, on a voluntary basis, data from the states on their progress toward substantial implementation of protection strategies for all community water systems (CWSs). The information to be collected will help states and EPA understand the progress toward the Agency's goal of increasing the number of CWSs (and the populations they serve) with minimized risk to public health through development and implementation of source water protection strategies for source water areas. In April of 2015, the National Water Program published guidance for meeting the water-related goals in the FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan. In keeping with this guidance, EPA specifically tracks the percentage of all CWSs that are implementing source water protection and the percentage of the total population which is served by those systems.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: 51.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Frequency of response: Annual.

    Total estimated burden: 342 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $14,853 (per year).

    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease in the total estimated burden of 1,026 hours and a decrease in the total estimated cost of $130,416 from the existing ICR. This decrease is because source water protection programs are maturing. State databases are fully developed and tracking is routine compared to the burden and costs calculated for the existing ICR. The change in costs due to increased hourly labor charges is also factored into this estimate.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23476 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9934-24-Region 5] Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Great Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public teleconference of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (Board). The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19 and other relevant matters.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Central Time, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public teleconference will be held by teleconference only. The teleconference number is: (877) 744-6030; participant code: 31140236.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this teleconference may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at [email protected] General information on the GLRI and the Board can be found at http://glri.us/public.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Board is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the Board in 2013 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in her capacity as Chair of the federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (IATF). The Board conducts business in accordance with FACA and related regulations.

    The Board consists of 16 members appointed by EPA's Administrator in her capacity as IATF Chair. Members serve as representatives of state, local and tribal government, environmental groups, agriculture, business, transportation, educational institutions, and as technical experts.

    Availability of teleconference materials: The agenda and other materials in support of the teleconference will be available at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.

    Procedures for providing public input: Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the Board. Input from the public to the Board will have the most impact if it provides specific information for the Board to consider. Members of the public wishing to provide comments should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to comment. Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by October 5, 2015 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference.

    Written statements: Written statements must be received by October 1, 2015 so that the information may be made available to the Board for consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two versions of each document submitted: One each with and without signatures because only documents without signatures may be published on the GLRI Web page.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least seven days prior to the teleconference, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 9, 2015. Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor to the Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23474 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9022-9] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 09/07/2015 Through 09/11/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150259, Final, FRA, NC, Southeast High Speed Rail, Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: John Winkle 202-493-6067. EIS No. 20150260, Final, BR, CA, Central Valley Project Municipal and Industrial Water Shortage Policy, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Timothy Rust 916-978-5516. EIS No. 20150261, Final, DOE, HI, PROGRAMMATIC—Hawaii Clean Energy, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Dr. Jane Summerson 800-472-2756. EIS No. 20150262, Final, USFWS, VA, Chincoteague and Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Thomas Bonetti 413-253-8307. EIS No. 20150263, Draft, BLM, USFS, ID, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Rasmussen Valley Mine, Comment Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: Bill Volk 208-236-7503. The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service are joint lead agencies for this project. EIS No. 20150264, Final, FHWA, TN, Pellissippi Parkway Extension (State Route 162) from State Route 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/State Route 73/Lamar Alexander Parkway, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Theresa Claxton 615-781-5770. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150199, Draft, OSM, Other, Stream Protection Rule, Comment Period Ends: 10/26/2015, Contact: Robin Ferguson 202-208-2802 Revision to FR Notice Published 07/24/2015; Extending Comment Period from 09/15/2015 to 10/26/2015. Dated: September 15, 2015. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23490 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan 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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 October 15, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:

    1. PB Bancorp, Inc., Putnam, Connecticut, to acquire 100 percent of the outstanding capital stock of Putnam Bank, Putnam, Connecticut, pursuant to regulations 12 CFR 239.55 and 238.11, in connection with the second-step conversion of Putnam Bancorp, MHC from mutual to stock form and the merger of PB Bancorp, Inc., with and into a merged entity of Putnam Bancorp, MHC and PSB Holdings, Inc., with PB Bancorp, Inc. as the survivor.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. Central Federal Bancshares, Inc., Rolla, Missouri; to become a savings and loan holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Central Savings and Loan Association of Rolla, Rolla, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 15, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23435 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 15, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

    1. Anthony T. Moore, Allison T. Moore, both of Burns, Tennessee, and Southeastern Bancorp, Inc., Dickson, Tennessee, to retain voting shares of Cumberland Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Cumberland Bank & Trust, both in Clarksville, Tennessee.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Thomas George Chase, Jr., Waco, Texas; to acquire voting shares of CentraBanc Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Central National Bank, both in Waco, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 15, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23434 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier CMS-2552-10] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request 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 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate 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.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR Email: [email protected]

    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:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 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. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospital and Hospital Health Care Complex Cost Report; Use: Providers of services participating in the Medicare program are required under sections 1815(a) and 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395g) to submit annual information to achieve settlement of costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, regulations at 42 CFR 413.20 and 413.24 require adequate cost data and cost reports from providers on an annual basis.

    We are requesting the Office of Management and Budget review and approve this revision to the Form CMS-2552-10, Hospital and Hospital Health Care Complex Cost Report. These cost reports are filed annually by hospitals participating in the Medicare program to determine the reasonable costs incurred to provide medical services to patients. The revisions made to the hospital cost report are in accordance with the statutory requirement for hospice payment reform in § 3132 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (March 23, 2010) and the statutory requirement establishing a prospective payment system for Federally Qualified Health Centers in § 10501(i)(3)(A) of the ACA, codified in section 1834(o) of the Act. Form Number: CMS-2552-10 (OMB control number 0938-0050); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Private sector (For-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 6,157; Total Annual Responses: 6,157; Total Annual Hours: 4,143,661. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Gail Duncan at 410-786-7278).

    Dated: September 15, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23462 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10261] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice and withdrawal of previous 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 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate 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.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 19, 2015.

    As of September 18, 2015 and as described below under “Partial Withdrawal of Previous Notice,” the CMS-10261-related portion of the notice that published on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51275) is withdrawn.

    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: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ____, 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:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 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. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Part C Medicare Advantage Reporting Requirements and Supporting Regulations; Use: There are a number of information users of Part C reporting data, including our central and regional office staff that use this information to monitor health plans and to hold them accountable for their performance, researchers, and other government agencies such as the Government Accounting Office. Health plans can use this information to measure and benchmark their performance.

    Based on internal review, this notice withdraws a portion of a prior notice (August 24, 2015) concerning the same subject matter and corrects that notice by adding a new requirement which was inadvertently omitted from that notice. Specifically, we propose to add a new Payments to Providers reporting section to capture data related to MA organizations' value-based payments. Upon OMB approval, the Payments to Providers section would add 10 data elements.

    HHS has developed four categories of value based payment: (1) Fee-for-service with no link to quality; (2) fee-for-service with a link to quality; (30 alternative payment models built on fee-for-service architecture; and (4) population-based payment. To compliment HHS' action, CMS is seeking to collect data from MA organizations about the proportion of their payments to providers made based on these four categories. The collected information would help us understand the extent and use of alternate payment models in the MA industry.

    Form Number: CMS-10261 (OMB Control Number 0938-1054); Frequency: Yearly and semi-annually; Affected Public: Private sector (business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 561; Total Annual Responses: 3,508; Total Annual Hours: 182,023. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Terry Lied at 410-786-8973).

    Partial Withdrawal of Previous Notice

    This document also withdraws a portion of a prior notice concerning the same CMS-10261-specific subject matter.

    Specifically, on page 51276, in the second column, in the second paragraph, information collection CMS-10261 (OMB Control Number 0938-1054) that published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51275) is hereby withdrawn.

    Dated: September 15, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23482 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3230] Consumer Comments—Public Posting and Availability of Comments Submitted to Food and Drug Administration Dockets AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is changing the Agency's long standing practice of not publically posting on http://www.regulations.gov comments submitted by individuals in their individual capacity. These are generally comments from people who self-identify as an “individual consumer” under the field titled “Category (Required)” on the “Your Information” page on http://www.regulations.gov. Changing FDA's practice to routinely post these comments, as we do other comments, will increase the transparency and public utility of FDA's public dockets. It will better enable our public dockets to function as intended: To share information and encourage an open exchange of ideas.

    DATES:

    All comments submitted to any FDA docket on or after October 15, 2015, will be publically posted, unless otherwise determined not to be subject to posting as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth R. Cohen, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3324, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Historically, FDA generally has not publicly posted on http://www.regulations.gov comments submitted by individuals in their individual capacity (and not on behalf of an organization, corporation, or other entity). For comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov, for example, such comments are identified as “Individual Consumer” under the field titled “Category (Required) ” on the “Your Information” page. This non-posting practice has applied only to individual consumer comments which otherwise would be displayed on http://www.regulations.gov. These comments have been placed in the official FDA docket and are publicly available in FDA's Reading Room or through Freedom of Information Act requests and have been considered by the Agency in finalizing its regulatory actions.

    FDA is changing this practice and will post such consumer comments on http://www.regulations.gov, as it posts other comments. FDA has made this change so that its public dockets better serve their purpose of promoting transparency and the sharing of information.

    In 1995, FDA explained that it routinely reviewed all comments for obvious confidential information before placing the comments in the docket (60 FR 66982), but this practice is no longer feasible given factors such as the volume of comments FDA receives and the adoption of a government-wide electronic portal system for submitting and posting comments at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA developed the practice of not posting individual consumer comments largely because of concerns about disclosing personal information of individuals who may not have realized, when submitting their comments, that their name, address, and other identifying information would be publicly viewable. This public viewability became more obvious as the Internet gained popularity and particularly when FDA dockets system was merged with the government-wide portal system for submission of all public comments on government regulatory actions at http://www.regulations.gov in 2007. This practice has been precautionary because, as FDA has stated previously, “there can be no reasonable expectation of confidentiality for information submitted to a public docket in a rulemaking proceeding.” 1 With the advent of http://www.regulations.gov, FDA selected “individual consumer” comments for non-posting because of previous concerns raised by individuals and the conclusion that such commenters may not be as familiar with the regulatory process and the public nature of dockets as are other entities, such as regulated industry.

    1 60 FR 66981, at 66982 (December 27, 1995).

    In recent years, FDA has occasionally made exceptions to this non-posting practice, typically using the COMMENTS section in a particular Federal Register document to alert the public that all comments were subject to public posting. FDA Federal Register documents, requesting or providing for the submission of comments, published subsequent to this notice will contain new instructions and information concerning the posting of comments submitted to that particular docket.

    This change fulfills a recommendation from the 2010 FDA Transparency Initiative 2 and aligns with a 2013 recommendation from the Administrative Conference of the United States that “[a]gencies should manage their public rulemaking dockets to achieve maximum public disclosure” consistent with legal limitations and other claims of privilege.3 It also furthers an objective in Executive Order 13563,4 which directs Agencies to base their regulations on “public participation and an open exchange of ideas.”

    2 “FDA Transparency Initiative: Draft Proposals for Public Comment Regarding Disclosure Policies of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” May 2010, available at www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/PublicDisclosure (p. 4).

    3 Recommendation No. 2013-4, available at http://www.acus.gov/recommendation/administrative-record-informal-rulemaking.

    4 Executive Order 13563, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf.

    II. Consumer Comments and Confidential Information

    The commenter is solely responsible for ensuring that the submitted comment does not include any confidential information that the commenter or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as private medical information, the commenter's or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. If a name, contact information, or other information that identifies the commenter is included in the body of the submitted comment, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. FDA will post comments, as well as any attachments submitted electronically, on http://www.regulations.gov, along with the State/Province and country (if provided), the name of the commenter's representative (if any), and the category selected to identify the commenter (e.g., individual, consumer, academic, industry).

    The Agency expects that only in exceptional instances would a comment need to include private, personal, or confidential information. If a comment is submitted with confidential information that the commenter does not wish to be made available to the public, the comment would be submitted as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed in the applicable Federal Register document. For written/paper comments submitted containing confidential information, FDA will post the redacted/blacked out version of the comment including any attachments submitted by the commenter. The unredacted copy will not be posted, assuming the commenter follows the instructions in the applicable Federal Register document. Any information marked as confidential will not be disclosed except in accordance with § 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law.

    FDA will include new information and standard instructions for submitting comments in all Federal Register documents requesting or providing for the submission of comments. The instructions will explain how to submit comments to the docket on that particular document via electronic means and also will explain the process for submission of comments, in written/paper format, that the commenter wishes to mark as confidential.

    III. Date of Implementation

    All comments submitted electronically through http://www.regulations.gov to any FDA docket, existing or new, after October 15, 2015, will be posted to the applicable docket and publicly viewable on http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted by mail or delivery to the Division of Dockets Management in written/paper format to any FDA docket, existing or new, after October 15, 2015, will be posted to the applicable docket and publicly viewable on http://www.regulations.gov unless submitted under the following conditions: (1) The written/paper submission is marked as confidential, and (2) the submitter provides an unredacted and a redacted version; the redacted version must have the information claimed as confidential redacted/blacked out. If submitted under these conditions, only the redacted/blacked out written/paper submission will be posted publicly on http://www.regulations.gov, except as otherwise provided by § 10.20 or other law.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23389 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-0279-30D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for renewal of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990-0279, scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number 0990-0279 and document identifier HHS-OS-30D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Institutional Review Board Form—OMB No. 0990-0279, Assistant Secretary for Health, Office for Human Research Protections.

    Abstract: Section 491(a) of Public Law 99-158 states that the Secretary of HHS shall by regulation require that each entity applying for HHS support (e.g., a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement) to conduct research involving human subjects submit to HHS assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that it has established an institutional review board (IRB) to review the research in order to ensure protection of the rights and welfare of the human research subjects. IRBs are boards, committees, or groups formally designated by an entity to review, approve, and have continuing oversight of research involving human subjects.

    The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are requesting a three-year extension of the OMB No. 0990-0279, Institutional Review Board (IRB) Registration Form. This form was modified in 2009 to be consistent with IRB registration requirements, 45 CFR 46, subpart E and 21 CFR 56.106 that were adopted in July 2009 OHRP and FDA, respectively.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The information collected through the Institutional Review Board registration collection requirements is the minimum necessary to satisfy the registration requirements of Section 491(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 45 CFR part 46, subpart E and 21 CFR 56.106.

    Likely Respondents: Institutions or organizations operating IRBs that review human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS, or, in the case of FDA's regulations, IRBs in the United States that review clinical investigations regulated by FDA under sections 505(i) or 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and, IRBs in the United States that review clinical investigations that are intended to support applications for research or marketing permits for FDA-regulated products.

    Burden Statement: The burden estimates for the IRB registration form include those approved by OMB in March 2015 under Control Number 0990-0263, the Assurance Identification/IRB Certification/Declaration of Exemption form (former Optional Form 310). Those burden estimates are not included as part of the burden estimate presented below.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Table Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • IRB Registration 0990-0279 5,900 2 1 11,800 New Registratration 500 2 1 1,000 Total 12,800
    Darius Taylor, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23453 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Bethesda Campus Chilled Water System Improvements Record of Decision SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has decided, after completion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and a thorough consideration of the public comments on the Draft EIS, to implement the Proposed Action, referred to as the Proposed Action in the Final EIS. This action is to install a Thermal Energy Storage System and an Industrial Water Storage System to provide sufficient storage capacity to meet two days of chilled water demand and two days of industrial water demand should an outside disturbance interrupt the water supply.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Nottingham, Deputy Director, DEP, ORF, NIH, Building 13, Room 2S11, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, Phone 301-496-7775, [email protected] Responsible Official: Daniel G. Wheeland, Director, Office of Research Facilities (ORF) Development and Operations, NIH.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Decision

    After careful review of the environmental consequences in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Chilled Water System Improvements, National Institutes of Health, and consideration of public comment throughout the NEPA process, the NIH has decided to implement the Proposed Action described below as the Selected Alternative.

    Selected Alternative

    The Selected Alternative would implement chilled water system improvements that would enable the NIH to adequately accomplish the project goals. This would include sufficient storage capacity to meet two days of chilled water demand and two days of industrial water demand should an outside disturbance interrupt the normal supply of water by the WSSC.

    Elements of the Chilled Water System Improvements project that the NIH would implement under the Proposed Action include the following:

    Thermal Energy Storage System

    This system would be located at the Building 34 site and would store up to approximately nine million gallons of chilled water. Components of the system would include a storage tank, at or partially below-grade, with a footprint of approximately 12,000 SF; a pump house building with a footprint of approximately 5,000 SF or less; support equipment, such as pumps, valves, piping, controls, and an emergency generator; and security fencing, lighting, and other site improvements. The NIH would use this system to meet chilled water demands within the Campus.

    Industrial Water Storage System

    This system would be located at the Parking Lot 41 site and would store up to approximately five million gallons of industrial water. Industrial water is water that the CUP utilizes to generate steam or chilled water. Components of the system would include a storage tank, partially below-grade; a pump house building with a footprint of approximately 5,000 SF; support equipment, such as pumps, valves, variable frequency drivers, electrical equipment, switchgear, piping, controls, instrumentation, and an emergency generator; and security fencing, lighting, and other site improvements. The NIH would use this system to ensure an adequate supply of water to the chillers.

    Other Supporting Infrastructure

    The Thermal Energy Storage System and the Industrial Water Storage System would each require new or upgraded utility infrastructure at locations outside the limit of disturbance for each system. Potential locations for many components of this infrastructure have been identified during the planning process. However, precise details including piping locations and sizes are not fully developed. Examples of the types of infrastructure that the NIH may install or upgrade include additional equipment (e.g., pumps, variable frequency drives, electrical equipment, switchgear, emergency generator, control valves, backflow preventers, pressure reducing valves, controls, and instrumentation); other utility buildings; aboveground or buried piping; aboveground or buried utilities; and site improvements (e.g., repairs to existing features, new concrete slabs).

    Alternatives Considered

    The Proposed Action, Alternative Action and No Action Alternative were the three alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS. The Alternative Action would implement water infrastructure improvements that would enable the NIH to adequately accomplish the project goals. The characteristics, features, and location of the Thermal Energy Storage System would be identical to the Proposed Action. What separates the Alternative Action from the Proposed is the proposal of the Potable Water Storage System. The Potable Water Storage System would store up to nine million gallons of potable water to ensure an adequate supply of industrial water to the chillers and for potable water requirements on the Campus. The proposed location for the Potable Water Storage System would be the same as that described for the Industrial Water Storage System under the Proposed Action. The characteristics and components of the Potable Water Storage System would be similar to the Industrial Water Storage System, except that the storage tank would be larger. The tank would be about 90 feet in height, which is similar to the planned height of MLP-12 once fully built. The pump house, support equipment, and utilities and site improvements would otherwise be identical to the described features of the Industrial Water Storage Tank.

    Factors Involved in the Decision

    The NIH prefers the Proposed Action over the Alternative Action because the Alternative Action would require the NIH to become a continuous water source, which would incur more upfront and ongoing costs for treatment, maintenance, and monitoring of the campus potable water system. Additionally, relative to the Alternative Action, the Proposed Action would retain more connections to WSSC water mains (for redundancy), would not require installation and operation of pumps to maintain adequate pressure for fire service, would maintain existing flow dynamics of potable water within the Campus, and would require less construction (and therefore pose less potential for construction-related impacts to campus neighbors).

    Resources Impacted

    The Final EIS describes potential environmental effects of the Selected Alternative. These potential effects are documented in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Any potential adverse environmental effects will be avoided or mitigated through design elements, procedures, and compliance with regulatory and NIH requirements. Potential impacts on air quality are all within government standards (federal, state, and local). NIH does not expect significant negative effects on the environment or on the citizens of Bethesda from construction and operation at NIH.

    Summary of Impacts

    The following is a summary of potential impacts resulting from the Selected Alternative that the NIH considered when making its decision. No adverse cumulative effects have been identified during the NEPA process. Likewise, no unavoidable or adverse impacts from implementation of the Selected Action have been identified. The Selected Action will be beneficial to the long-term productivity of the national and world health communities. Biomedical research conducted at the NIH facility will have the potential to advance techniques in disease prevention, develop disease immunizations, and prepare defenses against naturally emerging and re-emerging diseases and against bioweapons. Additionally, the local community will benefit from increased employment, income and, government and public finance.

    Housing

    Implementation of the Selected Alternative would result in temporary minor impacts on the population and the availability of housing, due to construction workers who might temporarily relocate to the area.

    Education

    Educational resources in the area surrounding the Campus include public schools, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (located on NSA Bethesda), and the Foundation for Advanced Education in the Sciences (located at 9109 Old Georgetown Road). Public schools near the Campus include three high schools, five middle schools, and nineteen elementary schools. Implementation of the Selected Alternative will not have a significant impact to education.

    Transportation

    Implementation of the Selected Alternative would result in minor temporary impacts to off-campus roads, transit, and traffic due to construction activities. This would include additional traffic due to construction vehicles as well as shifts in employee traffic patterns. Implementation of the Selected Alternative would involve the construction of approximately 1-3 parking spaces to accommodate access for operation or maintenance vehicles. The construction of the Industrial Water Storage System would reduce parking capacity at Parking Lot 41 by approximately 90 parking spaces. In total, this will lead to a net decrease of approximately 90 parking spaces.

    Security

    Implantation of the Selected Alternative may have the NIH install security fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the tanks. There would be no significant impacts to security.

    Employment

    The Selected Alternative would result in minor benefits to the local economy during construction activities (e.g., meals and incidentals for construction workers). The Proposed Action would not result in a permanent change in job availability at the Campus or associated effects on the local economy.

    Environmental Justice

    Bethesda as a whole has relatively low proportions of minority, or low-income populations. Although there are areas of higher minority populations (30 to 35 percent) adjacent to the Campus, the percent minority is still low relative to Montgomery County (40.5 percent) and Maryland (37.9 percent). Impacts to social resources such as population and housing would be minor and temporary.

    Visual Quality

    The Selected Alternative would result in minor adverse impacts to external viewscapes. Existing topographical features and vegetation that largely block many potential views from adjacent neighborhoods would not be significantly altered as a result of the Selected Alternative.

    The Selected Alternative would result in minor to moderate adverse impacts to internal viewscapes. The construction of the Industrial Water Storage System would require removal of a grassy area with trees. This would result in a minor negative impact to the visual character of that area of the Campus. The construction of the Thermal Energy Storage System would have a moderate adverse impact, as the associated tank would be viewable from the central part of the Campus. Also, implementation of the Selected Alternative could result in removal of existing trees and vegetation from the Building 34 site that currently reduces views from the north. The scale of this potential impact is somewhat tempered as the tank would be adjacent to a parking garage and the CUP, so it would not be entirely out of character with surrounding structures.

    Under the Selected Alternative, all structures would be constructed to a height that does not exceed the Master Plan building height guidance. Construction of the Industrial Water Storage System into the hillside slope near Parking Lot 41 would be consistent with Master Plan guidance for minimizing the visual impact of new construction.

    Noise

    Implementation of the Selected Alternative would result in temporary minor noise impacts due to construction activities as well as long-term moderate noise impacts due to operational changes at the CUP.

    Air Quality

    Implementation of the Selected Alternative would result in minor direct and indirect impacts to air quality.

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Construction and demolition activities would generate temporary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while periodic emergency generator use, would generate recurring GHG emissions. Current GHG methodologies outlined in the TSD do not describe how to account for construction activities; therefore, they are not included in the current NIH GHG inventory. NIH would strive to minimize GHG emissions by implementing construction, renovation, and demolition best practices.

    Stormwater Temporary Construction Impacts

    Implementation of the Selected Alternative would result in minor temporary impacts to stormwater quantity and quality due to earth disturbances during construction activities. The Limit of Disturbance (LOD) for the Selected Alternative would be approximately 467,000 SF of earth during construction activities.

    Potential erosion and sediment runoff impacts would be mitigated through stormwater management, including the development of an erosion and sediment control plan that is approved by MDE. The construction of the Thermal Energy Storage System and Industrial Water Storage System would each disturb more than one acre and therefore would obtain coverage under the MDE 2014 General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity. As a result, construction activities under the Proposed Action would have a minor impact on stormwater quality.

    Long-Term Stormwater Management

    Implementation of the Selected Alternative would result in minor long-term stormwater management impacts. The Selected Alternative would increase impervious surface at the Campus by approximately 153,000 SF, which would increase runoff within the Rock Creek Watershed relative to baseline conditions. However, the construction of the Thermal Energy Storage System and Industrial Water Storage System would each disturb greater than 5,000 SF, and therefore site design would be required to meet The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) Section 438 requirements to restore each site to predevelopment conditions. This requirement would minimize hydrologic impacts resulting from increased stormwater runoff volumes, such as damage to storm sewer infrastructure, increased likelihood of flooding, and increased erosion.

    The Selected Alternative would require permanent site stormwater management to control runoff and provide water quality treatment per federal and Maryland stormwater regulations. Long-term stormwater management facilities would be designed and installed per an MDE approved stormwater management plan. The NIH would incorporate appropriate and feasible Environmental Site Design (ESD) practices into the project designs to restore the predevelopment hydrology to the maximum extent technically feasible. Overall, these ESD practices would reduce runoff volume and rate, disperse flow, remove pollutants, and provide for groundwater recharge by facilitating infiltration into the soil.

    Construction of the Industrial Water Storage System and Thermal Energy Storage System would likely incorporate bioretention areas including stormwater planter boxes. These vegetated areas would infiltrate runoff from impervious surfaces at the site, reducing the quantity of stormwater runoff and improving the water quality.

    The Selected Alternative would not impact coverage under the Campus's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, MS4 permit.

    Historic Resources

    Construction of the Thermal Energy Storage System and associated infrastructure would result in temporary construction impacts (e.g., noise) and a permanent change in the appearance of the Building 34 site. These impacts would be perceptible from the rear of the historic Biologics Standards Laboratory and Annex (Buildings 29 and 29A), located north of the project site. The new infrastructure would also result in a minor change in the appearance of the Campus when viewed from the historic National Library of Medicine (NLM) complex (Buildings 38 and 38A). Additionally, construction of the Industrial Water Storage System may result in a minor change in the appearance of the Campus when viewed from the upper levels of Building 38A. Construction of these new facilities, however, would not affect the integrity of setting of these historic properties; would not obscure or compromise their original design intent; and would not otherwise affect the characteristics that qualify these historic properties for listing in the National Register.

    Based on this analysis, the NIH has determined that the Selected Alternative would not adversely affect any historic properties or MIHP-listed properties. Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, the NIH initiated consultation with the MD SHPO to obtain their concurrence with this finding. MD SHPO's concurrence of no adverse effect was received on 20 April 2015.

    Practicable Means To Avoid or Minimize Potential Environmental Harm From the Selected Alternative

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects from the Selected Alternative have been identified and incorporated into the action. The proposed Chilled Water System Improvement construction will be subject to the existing NIH pollution prevention, waste management, and safety, security, and emergency response procedures as well as existing environmental permits. Best management practices, spill prevention and control, and stormwater management plans will be followed to appropriately address the construction and operation of the new Chilled Water System and comply with applicable regulatory and NIH requirements. No additional mitigation measures have been identified.

    Pollution Prevention

    Air quality permit standards will be met, as will all federal, state, and local requirements to protect the environment and public health.

    Conclusion

    Based upon review and careful consideration, the NIH has decided to implement the Selected Alternative for a Chilled Water System Improvement System located in Bethesda, Maryland. The decision accounts for a potential outside disturbance interrupting the campus water supply. The system will provide sufficient storage capacity to meet two days of chilled water demand and two days of industrial water demand should an interruption occur.

    The decision was based upon review and careful consideration of the impacts identified in the Final EIS and public comments received throughout the NEPA process.

    Dated: September 8, 2015. Daniel G. Wheeland, Director, Office of Research Facilities Development and Operations, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23487 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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: Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review Group, NST-1 Subcommittee.

    Date: October 13-14, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 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: Raul A. Saavedra, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review Group, NST-2 Subcommittee.

    Date: October 26-27, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco Alexandria, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Elizabeth A. Webber Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-1917, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders A.

    Date: October 27-28, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Natalia Strunnikova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-402-0288, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders B.

    Date: October 29, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco Alexandria, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Birgit Neuhuber, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-3562, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders C.

    Date: November 5-6, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Alexandria, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: William C. Benzing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3204, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-0660, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 14, 2014. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23444 Filed 9-17-15; 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; Research Education Programs (R25).

    Date: October 9, 2015.

    Time: 2 p.m. to 4 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: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Confirmatory Efficacy Clinical Trials of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Mental Disorders.

    Date: October 14, 2015.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3 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: Marcy Ellen Burstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6143, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-9699, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: October 14, 2015.

    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 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: Marcy Ellen Burstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6143, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-9699, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 14, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23445 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.

    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: Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.

    Date: October 20, 2015.

    Open: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: The Committee serves to advise and make recommendations to the Director, Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) on a broad range of topics.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Wilson Hall, Building 1, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: ORWH 25th Anniversary Celebration of Science.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Wilson Hall, Building 1, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Terri L. Cornelison, MD, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Office of Research on Women's Health, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 402-1770, [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: www4.od.nih.gov/orwh/, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 14, 2014. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Police.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23385 Filed 9-17-15; 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; Member Conflict: Sleep and Circadian Processes.

    Date: October 13-14, 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: 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: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Cancer Biomarkers Study Section.

    Date: October 13-14, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Lawrence Ka-Yun Ng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6152, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-357-9318, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Epilepsy and Neurodegenerative Diseases.

    Date: October 14, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 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: Seetha Bhagavan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9838, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Drug Discovery and Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance Study Section.

    Date: October 15-16, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Guangyong Ji, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3188, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1146, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR15-162: Pilot Clinical Urology.

    Date: October 22, 2015.

    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport, 1489 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Ryan G Morris, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1501, [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: September 14, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23387 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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 Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee (MDCC).

    The meeting will be open to the public and accessible by live webcast.

    Name of Committee: Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee.

    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: November 13, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Eastern Time*—Approximate end time.

    Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is to bring together committee members, representing government agencies, patient advocacy groups, other voluntary health organizations, and patients and their families to update one another on progress relevant to the Action Plan for the Muscular Dystrophies and to coordinate activities and discuss gaps and opportunities leading to better understanding of the muscular dystrophies, advances in treatments, and reduced disease burden. Prior to the meeting, an agenda will be posted to the MDCC meeting registration Web site: https://meetings.ninds.nih.gov/meetings/MDCC13Nov2015/.

    Registration: To register, please go to: https://meetings.ninds.nih.gov/meetings/MDCC13Nov2015/.

    Webcast Live: For those not able to attend in person, this meeting will be webcast at: http://videocast.nih.gov/.

    Place: Neuroscience Center, Conference Room C/D, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Contact Person: Glen H. Nuckolls, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC 2203, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 496-5739, [email protected]

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their 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.

    Attendance is limited to seating space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed above in advance of the meeting. All visitors must go through a security check at the meeting site to receive a visitor's badge. A valid, government issued photo ID must be presented before a visitor's badge can be issued. Further information can be found at the registration Web site: https://meetings.ninds.nih.gov/meetings/MDCC13Nov2015/.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 14, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23443 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation for High Throughput Prioritization and Decision Making; Notice of Webinars and Public Workshop; Registration Information SUMMARY:

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announce the workshop, “In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation for High Throughput Prioritization and Decision Making.” Attendees at the in-person workshop and four webinar presentations leading up to the workshop will discuss the state of the science and best practices for using in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) in a tiered risk decision context.

    DATES:

    Webinars: October 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT); and November 4, 2015; December 2, 2015; and January 6, 2016; at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    Webinar Registration: Deadline is two business days prior to each webinar.

    Workshop: February 17-18, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. (EST).

    Workshop Registration: Deadline is February 5, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    Workshop Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Durham, NC, 27709.

    Web page: The preliminary agenda, registration, and other meeting materials will be available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/ivive-wksp-2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, NICEATM; email: [email protected]; telephone: (919) 316-4729.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Data from high throughput in vitro tests are being generated for many chemicals of environmental and commercial interest, with the expectation that in vitro assay data could ultimately be used to predict adverse effects of chemical exposures in vivo. Translating values obtained from in vitro assays into estimates of in vivo outcomes is a complex process involving the use of mathematical modeling and increasingly complex test systems. The series of four webinars and in-person workshop aim to address the capabilities and limitations of IVIVE within the context of risk decision-making.

    The webinar series will present the current science, and the in-person workshop will facilitate discussions that follow-up and build on information presented in the webinars. During the workshop, participants will (1) review the state of the science to form recommendations on best practices for using IVIVE in chemical screening and risk-based decision making, (2) identify areas that require additional data and/or research, and (3) highlight examples of how best to apply IVIVE in a tiered risk decision-making strategy.

    Preliminary Agenda and Other Meeting Information: A preliminary agenda and additional information will be available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/ivive-wksp-2016.

    Meeting and Registration: This workshop is open to the public, free of charge, with attendance limited only by the space available. Registration is required to attend both the webinars and the workshop. Those persons attending the workshop should plan to participate in all four webinars. However, viewing the webinars does not require attendance at the workshop. Individuals who plan to attend the workshop must register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/ivive-wksp-2016 by February 5, 2016. Individuals who plan to participate in the webinars must register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/ivive-wksp-2016 two business days prior to the webinar date to ensure access. Please visit this Web page for the most current information about the webinars and workshop. For those who register, information about how to access the webinar will be emailed within two business days of each webinar.

    Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in these events should contact Dr. Elizabeth Maull at phone: (919) 316-4668 or email: [email protected] TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event. Visitor and security information for those attending the workshop can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epas-campus-research-triangle-park-rtp-north-carolina.

    Background Information on NICEATM: NICEATM conducts data analyses, workshops, independent validation studies, and other activities to assess new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM also provides support for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) provides authority for ICCVAM and NICEATM in the development of alternative test methods. Information about NICEATM and ICCVAM is found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm and http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam, respectively.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23386 Filed 9-17-15; 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; Aging of the Lung.

    Date: October 20, 2015.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Maurizio Grimaldi, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2c218, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9374, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 14, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23388 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in At-Risk Settings (NIAID) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2015, page 19090 and allowed 60-days for public comment. One comment was received. However, it was not applicable to this data collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Diane Post, Program Officer, Respiratory Diseases Branch, NIAID, NIH, 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD or call non-toll-free number at 240-627-3348 or email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: United States and Global Human Influenza Surveillance in at-Risk Settings, 0925—NEW, National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: These studies will identify individuals with or at risk for influenza through focused surveillance in at-risk settings within the United States and internationally, rapidly identify circulating influenza strains to identify those with pandemic potential and create an invaluable bank of human samples from influenza patients to allow the characterization of the determinants of influenza transmission to and among humans, the immune response to influenza, and the basis of severe disease—critical knowledge gaps impacting effectiveness of decision-making around patient care and pandemic preparedness. These studies will provide insight into viral and host determinants that may be contributing to the transmission of influenza, immune response to influenza, and severity of influenza and associated morbidity and mortality.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours for the entire 3 year request are 17334.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Estimates of hour burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Average time per response Annual hour
  • burden
  • Hospital/care setting patients Informed Consent Form 1600 1 10/60 267 Form 1a Screening and enrollment log (Attachment 3) 1 10/60 267 Form 2a Eligibility Checklist (Attachment 4) 1 10/60 267 Form 3a Subject Identification (Attachment 5) 1 10/60 267 Form 4a Demographic and Exposure Information (Attachment 6) 1 10/60 267 Form 5a Current Symptoms (Attachment 7) 1 10/60 267 Form 6a Medical History (Attachment 8) 1 10/60 267 Form 8a Follow Up Assessment (Attachment 10) 4 10/60 1,067 Human Animal-interface patients Informed Consent Form 900 1 10/60 150 Form 1a Screening and enrollment log (Attachment 3) 1 10/60 150 Form 2a Eligibility Checklist (Attachment 4) 1 10/60 150 Form 3a Subject Identification (Attachment 5) 1 10/60 150 Form 4a Demographic and Exposure Information (Attachment 6) 1 10/60 150 Form 5a Current Symptoms (Attachment 7) 25 10/60 3,750 Form 6a Medical History (Attachment 8) 1 10/60 150 Form 8a Follow Up Assessment (Attachment 10) 25 10/60 3,750 Household Surveillance patients Informed Consent Form 500 1 10/60 83 Form 1a Screening and enrollment log (Attachment 3) 1 10/60 83 Form 2a Eligibility Checklist (Attachment 4) 1 10/60 83 Form 3a Subject Identification (Attachment 5) 1 10/60 83 Form 4a Demographic and Exposure Information (Attachment 6) 1 10/60 83 Form 5a Current Symptoms (Attachment 7) 6 10/60 500 Form 6a Medical History (Attachment 8) 1 10/60 83 Form 8a Follow Up Assessment (Attachment 10) 6 10/60 500 Study Staff Informed Consent Form 5 600 10/60 500 Form 7a Enrollment Specimen Collection (Attachment 9) 600 10/60 500 Form 9a ED Chart Review (Attachment 11) 600 10/60 500 Form 10a Chart Review—Inpatient Hospitalization (Attachment 12) 600 10/60 500 Form 11a Subject Withdrawal Form (Attachment 13) 600 10/60 500 Form 12a Subject checklist (Attachment 14) 600 10/60 500 Form 13A Enrollment Report (Attachment 15) 600 10/60 500 Form 14A 10% Data accuracy report (Attachment 16) 600 10/60 500 Form 15A—QC Checklist (Attachment 17) 600 10/60 500 Totals 3,005 17,334
    Dated: September 10, 2015. Dione Washington, Project Clearance Liaison, NIAID, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23479 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0672] Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee. The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on various matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels.

    DATES:

    Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee that identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:

    By mail: Commandant (CG-CVC), Attn: Fishing Vessel Safety, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501.

    By fax: 202-372-8377.

    By email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jack Kemerer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, telephone at 202-372-1249, fax at 202-372-8377, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, title 5 United States Code Appendix. The Coast Guard chartered the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee to provide advice on issues related to the safety of commercial fishing industry vessels regulated under chapter 45 of title 46, U.S.C., which includes uninspected fish catching vessels, fish processing vessels, and fish tender vessels. (See 46 U.S.C. 4508.)

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee meets at least once a year. It may also meet for other extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees or working groups may communicate throughout the year to prepare for meetings or develop proposals for the committee as a whole to address specific tasks.

    Each member serves for a term of three years. An individual may be appointed to a term as a member more than once, but not more than two terms consecutively. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings.

    The Coast Guard will consider applications for six (06) positions that expire or become vacant in May 2016 in the following categories:

    (a) Commercial Fishing Industry representatives (four positions);

    (b) General Public, (one position) particularly a person familiar with issues affecting fishing communities and families of fishermen; and

    (c) A Naval Architect and Marine Engineer representative of commercial fishing vessels (one position).

    If you are selected as a member from the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as Special Government Employee, applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Applicants can obtain this form by going to the Web site of the Office of Government Ethics (www.oge.gov), or by contacting the individual listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Applications for a member from the general public which are not accompanied by a completed OGE Form 450 will not be considered.

    Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards and Commission” (79 CFR 47482, August 13, 2014). The position we list for a member from the general public would be someone appointed in their individual capacity and would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in 202(a), title 18, U.S.C. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65, as amended by title II of Pub. L. 110-81).

    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. Jack Kemerer, Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via one of the transmittal methods in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section. Indicate the position you wish to fill and specify your area of expertise, knowledge, and experience that qualify you for that position on the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee.

    To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2015-0672) in the Search box, and click “Search”. Please do not post your resume or OGE Form 450 on this site.

    Dated: September 11, 2015. V.B. Gifford, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23488 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-38] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Agriculture: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; Health and Human Services: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265; Navy: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management; Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426 (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: September 10, 2015. Brian P. Fitzmaurice, Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM Federal Register REPORT FOR 09/18/2015 Suitable/Available Properties Building California 2 Buildings 5050 Smokey Court Camp Connell CA 95223 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201510014 Status: Excess Directions: Site 5202, Bldg. 5002 Comments: Off-site removal; 48+yrs.old; wood structure; 528 sq. ft.; office; very poor conditions; no future agency need; contact Agriculture of more info. Michigan Bergland Middle Building Bergland Cultural Center Site Bergland MI 49910 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201430017 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1,025 sq. ft., storage; 120+ months vacant; deteriorating; building on National Register Site; contact Agriculture for more information. Ontonagon Ranger House 1205 Rockland Road Ontonagon MI 49953 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201430018 Status: Unutilized Comments: 1,570 sq. ft., residential; 96+ months vacant; poor conditions; contact Agriculture for more information. Montana Residential Garage W/1032 Infra #1500 Ant Flat Road Eureka MT 95501 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520025 Status: Excess Comments: Off-site removal only; 61+ yrs. old; 491 sq. ft.; storage; contact Agriculture for more information. 2-Bedroom Family Dwelling Infra. #1032 Ant Flat Road Eureka MT 95501 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520026 Status: Excess Directions: Ant Flat Road Comments: Off-site removal; 64+ yrs. old; 1,004 sq. ft.; residential; 30+ mos. vacant; experience extensive flood; damage which caused significant mold damage; contact Agriculture for more information. New York Hector Grazing Association Hdgt. House 5046 Rt. 1 Searsburg Road Hector NY 14886 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201510001 Status: Unutilized Comments: 125+ yrs. Old; 1,000 sq. ft.; storage; residential; vacant 96 NOS; wood structure; repaired needed in 2006 totaled $89,000; contact Agric. For more info. Oregon XX334 GB Grizzly Communication Bldg. 1560.005181 076630 00 Agness OR 97406 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201430020 Status: Excess Directions: 25 sq. ft.; shed; 39+ yrs.-old; poor condition Comments: Off-site removal only; restrictive removal due to constraints surrounding land/vegetation. Washington Beth Lake Comfort Station 1303.005031 Beth Lake Campground Chesaw WA 98844 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520029 Status: Unutilized Directions: 0325-0765300 Comments: Off-site removal; 50+ yrs.; old; 900 sq. ft.; toilet; 24+ mos. Vacant; not needs replacing; no future agency need; contact Agriculture for more information. Wisconsin Luepke Way Garage 207 Luepke Way Medford WI 54451 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201440005 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 96+ months vacant; 576 sq. ft.; roof & siding in poor conditions; wood structure; contact Agriculture for more information Clam Lake Warehouse #364 61766 Highway 77 Clam Lake WI 54517 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201510029 Status: Unutilized Comments: Off-site removal only; no future agency need; 800 sq. ft.; storage; good condition; contact Agriculture for more information. Unsuitable Properties Building Arkansas NCTR—Building 6 30956 3900 NCTR Rd. Jefferson AR 72079 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530010 Status: Unutilized Comments: research-based campus; highly classified; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access w/out compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area NCTR-Building13 Administrative 30956 3900 NCTR Rd. Jefferson AR 72079 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530011 Status: Unutilized Comments: Researched-based campus; highly classified; public access denied and no alternative to gain access w/out compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Colorado 8 Buildings; East Portal Site Gilpin County Road Nederland CO Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201430019 Status: Excess Directions: 176; 177; 178; 179; 180; 181; 182; 183 Comments: Documented deficiencies; structurally unsound extreme deterioration; clear threat of physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration Idaho Bonners Cook Trailer Infra. #1413 Bonners Ferry Ranger District Admin. Site Bonners Ferry ID Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201510025 Status: Excess Comments: Documented deficiencies: roof collapsing; clear threat to personal safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration. Maryland NIHBC #34 + 34A 34 Service Drive West Bethesda MD 20892 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201510001 Status: Unutilized Directions: #40506-00-0034; #40506-00-0034A Comments: Research based facility; Public access denied & no alter method to gain access w/out compromising Nat'l Security. Reasons: Secured Area. Michigan Mio 7 Winowiecki Consumers Cab Huron Nat'l Forest Old M-72 (Smith Bridge) Grayling MI 49738 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520003 Status: Unutilized Comments: Documented deficiencies: documentation provided represents a clear threat to personal safety; significant rot in floor/roof structure; relocation will most likely result in the roof collapsing. Reasons: Extensive deterioration. Michigan Mio 7 Winowiecki Consumers Lea Huron National Forest Old M-72 (Smith Bridge) Grayling MI 49738 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520004 Status: Unutilized Comments: Documented deficiencies: documentation provided represents a clear threat to personal safety; interior space of the structure cannot be made to comply w/habitability requirements. Reasons: Extensive deterioration. Pennsylvania 4 Buildings Cochrans Mills Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201410002 Status: Underutilized Directions: 3, 101, 140, 145 Comments: w/in CDC secured campus; public access denied and no alternative to gain access w/out compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area. Texas Building 46 ID 620240B046 2881 F&B Road College Station TX 77845 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201520027 Status: Unutilized Comments: Tin roof in poor condition; ceiling falling down; exterior walls are rotten & pulling apart from the floor & roof; floor beams are rotten and unable to support the floor structure. Reasons: Extensive deterioration. VIRGINIA 21 Buildings Marine Corps Base Quantico VA Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530016 Status: Unutilized Directions: 27010A; 27013A; 27014B; 27015C; 27017D; 27026A; 27026Q; 27030A; 27061A; 27064D; 2739; 27246; 27246A; 27280B; 27553; 27018A; 27035; 27036; 2704A; 27058; 27012B—200 sq. ft. for each building listed. Comments: REDETERMINATION: documented deficiencies: severely dilapidated; structurally unsound; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration. Wisconsin Vanderveen Barn; Infra. #332 N15484 Shady Knoll Road Park Falls WI 54552 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201440009 Status: Unutilized Comments: Documented deficiencies: dilapidated; sections of missing/collapsing; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23139 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5871-N-02] Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Second Quarter of Calendar Year 2015 AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly Federal Register notices of all regulatory waivers that HUD has approved. Each notice covers the quarterly period since the previous Federal Register notice. The purpose of this notice is to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act. This notice contains a list of regulatory waivers granted by HUD during the period beginning on April 1, 2015, and ending on June 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the second quarter of calendar year 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:

    1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;

    2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;

    3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. These notices (each covering the period since the most recent previous notification) shall:

    a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;

    b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;

    c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;

    d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and

    e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.

    Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.

    This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.

    This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.

    Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.

    Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.

    Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the second quarter of calendar year 2015) before the next report is published (the third quarter of calendar year 2015), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the second quarter in the next report.

    Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Helen R. Kanovsky, General Counsel. Appendix Listing of Waivers of Regulatory Requirements Granted by Offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development April 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2015

    Note to Reader: More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.

    The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:

    I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.

    II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Government National Mortgage Association.

    III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.

    IV. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

    I. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6).

    Project/Activity: Chester County, PA, Department of Community Development requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6) to invest up to $190,000 of HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program funds to purchase a previously assisted 4-unit rental housing project assisted under the HOME program that was in mortgage foreclosure.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6) prohibits assistance to a project previously assisted with HOME funds during the period of affordability established by the participating jurisdiction in the written agreement under 24 CFR 92.504.

    Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: April 6, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was granted to permit the County to invest additional HOME funds in the HOME-assisted project during the period of affordability in order to preserve the units as affordable housing. The initial and new investment of HOME funds was within the applicable maximum per-unit subsidy limits, and the HOME period of affordability was extended for an additional ten years.

    Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.513(b)(2) and (b)(9).

    Project/Activity: The City of Detroit, MI requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.513(b)(2) and (b)(9) to facilitate the funding of its Home Repair Program, a local housing rehabilitation program. The City planned to fund its program through a lump sum drawdown and arranged for its subrecipient Local Initiative Support Coalition (LISC) to administer the program. LISC arranged for two separate private financial institutions to provide required consideration for the deposit of funds rather than one institution as contemplated by CDBG program regulations. The first institution, Bank of America, agreed to provide LISC with $4 million in funding for the program but declined to be a party to a lump sum drawdown agreement as required under 24 CFR 570.513(b)(2). The second institution, JP Morgan Chase (Chase), agreed to serve as LISC's depository institution, and agreed to be a party to a lump sum agreement and provide the appropriate benefits required under 24 CFR 570.513(b)(9) in support of the program. The City requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.513(b)(2) and (b)(9) to allow the City to enter into an agreement with LISC and Chase to the extent necessary to allow two separate financial institutions to provide the appropriate benefits in support of the city's local housing rehabilitation program.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 570.513(b)(2) requires financial institutions that provide financing for a lump sum fund to execute a written lump sum agreement and specify the obligations and responsibilities of the parties, the terms and conditions on which Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are to be deposited and used or returned, the anticipated level of rehabilitation activities by the financial institution, the rate of interest and other benefits to be provided by the financial institution in return for the lump sum deposit, and such other terms as are necessary for compliance with the provisions of this section. The regulation at 24 CFR 570.513(b)(9) requires the private financial institution in which the funds are deposited to provide other benefits in addition to the payment of interest. These benefits may include the leveraging of the deposited funds, the commitment of private funds at below market interest rates, or the provision of administrative services in support of the rehabilitation program.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: Granting the waiver of 24 CFR 570.513(b)(2) and (b)(9) allowed the City of Detroit to enter into an agreement with LISC and Chase to the extent necessary to allow two separate financial institutions to provide the appropriate benefits in support of the city's local housing rehabilitation program. By granting these waivers, the program could be fully implemented bringing needed investment to the City.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director of Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 570.503(b)(7).

    Project/Activity: The County of San Luis Obispo, CA, requested a waiver to allow its subrecipient, the Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County, to sell a CDBG-funded food bank in Paso Robles and relocate the food bank's operations to a new larger and more efficient facility that will be constructed in part with the proceeds of the sale. The use of the new facility will meet the same national objective as the existing site and will serve a greater number of people in the County.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 570.503(b)(7) states that a property acquired by a subrecipient with CDBG funds must be used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 until five years after the expiration of the subrecipient agreement. If the property is not used to meet a national objective, the subrecipient must reimburse the county an amount equal to the prorated share of the current fair market value of the property.

    Granted By: Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

    Date Granted: June 3, 2015.

    Reason Waived: This waiver allowed the Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County to move the food bank from Paso Robles to a new larger and more efficient location that will serve a larger CDBG-eligible population. Rather than reimburse the CDBG program, the Food Bank Coalition will sell the existing Paso Robles site and use the proceeds to help pay for the new facility. A waiver of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(7) was required to allow the Food Bank Coalition to use the proceeds to construct the new facility rather than reimburse the County, and to effect the transfer of programmatic requirements. The CDBG investment and program requirements will be transferred to the new facility and the use of the new facility will meet the same national objective as the use of the existing site.

    Contact: Steve Johnson, Director of Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4548.

    II. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 330.20(a)(2)(i)(D).

    Project/Activity: Amherst Pierpont Securities LLC (APS) eligibility for approval as a Sponsor of Ginnie Mae guaranteed structured securities.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 330.20(a)(2)(i)(D) establishes certain eligibility requirements for an entity applying for approval as a Ginnie Mae Sponsor. An applicant must submit an audited financial statement, which must be issued within the preceding 12 month period that demonstrates compliance with the minimum required amount of shareholders' equity or partners' capital in accordance with Ginnie Mae guidelines.

    Granted By: Theodore W. Tozer, President, Ginnie Mae.

    Date Granted: June 30, 2015.

    Reason Waived: On October 10, 2014 Pierpont Securities LLC (Pierpont Securities) acquired 100% of Amherst ASG Holdings, LLC (Amherst Securities Group) through an exchange of the Parent Company's equity units. Since the acquisition occurred after September 30, 2014, the next audited financial statement will be on the fiscal year that ends later in 2015. The timing of the merger is a special circumstance for APS. Therefore, Ginnie Mae found good cause existed to issue a one-time waiver of the requirement for an applicant for approval as a sponsor to submit an audited financial statement issued within the preceding 12 month period.

    Contact: William Hughes, Transaction Management Specialist, Office of Capital Markets, Government National Mortgage Association, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-4924.

    III. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Housing—Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 200.72.

    Project/Activity: New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled, Maintaining the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) is a not-for-profit, nationally recognized 162-bed academic medical center that specializes in orthopedics and rheumatology and is a member of the New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System and an affiliate of the Weill Medical College of Cornell University. HSS main facilities are located in New York City, New York, with other physician offices, rehabilitation and outpatient centers located in Long Island and Upstate New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates the project, when completed, shall not violate any material zoning or deed restrictions applicable to the project site, and shall comply with all applicable building and other governmental codes, ordinances, regulations and requirements.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The Hospital does not meet all of the applicable building codes, because it does not have a Permanent Certificate of Occupancy (PCO) for the building, but has a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. HSS will be able to move to Final Endorsement, enabling the completion of their expansion plan, which includes adding two new inpatient nursing units, expanded pharmacy and pediatric rehabilitation departments and three additional inpatient operating rooms.

    Contact: Shelley M. McCracken-Rania, Senior Financial Analyst, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2247, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-402-5366.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 200.926d(f)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i).

    Project/Activity: An extension of the waiver of Minimum Property Standards (MPS) regulations pertaining to water supply systems was requested to permit FHA insurance of mortgages secured by properties located in certain areas of the State of Alaska that rely upon water holding tanks and similar alternative water supply systems.

    Nature of Requirement: FHA's MPS regulations governing new construction for single family dwellings provide that to be eligible for FHA insurance, each living unit within newly constructed single family residential property should be capable of delivering a flow of five gallons per minute over a four hour period in order to provide a continuing and sufficient supply of safe water under adequate pressure and appropriate quality for household use. Under these regulatory requirements, water holding tanks, cisterns and similar alternative water supply systems are not considered under FHA requirements as acceptable water supply systems.

    Granted By: Edward Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 1, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The Santa Ana Homeownership Center requested an additional one year extension of the waiver pending publication of a proposed and final rule on alternative water supply systems.

    Contact: Cheryl Walker, Director, Home Valuation Policy Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9274, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-6880.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: Germano-Millgate Apartments, FHA Project Number 071-44081, Chicago, Illinois. The owners requested deferral of repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan on this project due to their inability to repay the loan in full upon prepayment of the 236 Loan.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects prior to May 1, 1996 states: “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project . . .” Either of these actions would typically terminate FHA involvement with the property, and the Flexible Subsidy Loan would be repaid, in whole, at that time.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: June 25, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan to allow the much needed preservation and moderate rehabilitation of the project. The project will be preserved as an affordable housing resource of Chicago, Illinois.

    Contact: Minnie Monroe-Baldwin, Branch Chief, Affordable Housing Transaction, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6222, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2636.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).

    Project/Activity: J.O. Blanton House, FHA Project Number 083-44025, Louisville, KY. Fifth Street High Rise, Incorporated (owner) seeks approval to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loans on the subject project.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: June 26, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan. Deferring the loan payment will preserve this affordable housing resource for an additional 35 years through the execution and recordation of a Rental Use Agreement.

    Contact: James Wyatt, Account Executive, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6172, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2591.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Cedar Creek Alzheimer & Dementia Care is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 pertaining to the configuration of bathrooms in such facilities. The project is located in Los Gatos, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates that, in a board and care home or assisted living facility, not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents, and that the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 12, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 9.67: 1.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone 202-402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Oak Creek Alzheimer & Dementia Care is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 pertaining to the configuration of bathrooms in such facilities. The project is located in Castro Valley, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates that, in a board and care home or assisted living facility, not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents, and that the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 12, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 10: 1.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone 202-402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Runk and Pratt is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 pertaining to the configuration of bathrooms in such facilities. The project is located in Forest, Va.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates that, in a board and care home or assisted living facility, not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents, and that the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 12, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 7.28: 1.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone 202-402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.

    Project/Activity: Via Christie is a memory care facility. The facility does not meet the requirements of 24 CFR 232.7 pertaining to the configuration of bathrooms in such facilities. The project is located in Omaha, NE.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates that, in a board and care home or assisted living facility, not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents, and that the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 10:1.

    Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, (O) 202-402-2419.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(b)(2).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Substantial Rehabilitation Defined. New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYCHDC).

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(b)(2) defines substantial rehabilitation. The following changes to the definition were temporarily made for both Level I and II Housing Finance Agencies: Work that exceeds either: (a) $15,000 times the high cost factor “as adjusted by HUD for inflation”, or (b) replacement of two or more building systems. `Replacement' is when cost of replacement work exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacing the entire system. The base limit is revised to $15,000 per unit for 2015, and will be adjusted annually based on the percentage change published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or other inflation cost index published by HUD. This change is consistent with proposed changes in the MAP Guide.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The temporary changes were necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. There are 11 qualified HFAs participants. Concurrent with the rollout of the FFB Initiative, HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing is beginning the process of making regulatory changes to these same provisions. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Equity Take-Outs. New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYCHDC).

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 266.200(c)(2) addresses equity take-outs for existing projects (refinance transactions), and permit the insured mortgage to exceed the sum of the total cost of acquisition, cost of financing, cost of repairs, and reasonable transaction costs or “equity take-outs” in refinances of HFA-financed projects and those outside of HFA's portfolio if the result is preservation with the following conditions:

    1. Occupancy is no less than 93 percent for previous 12 months;

    2. No defaults in the last 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced;

    3. A 20-year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the section 542(c) statutory definition;

    4. A Property Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA) must be performed and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and

    5. For projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts: Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20 year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.), and existing and post-refinance HAP residual receipts are set aside to be used to reduce future HAP payments.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. There are 11 qualified HFAs participants. Concurrent with the rollout of the FFB Initiative, HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing is beginning the process of making regulatory changes to these same provisions. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.200(d).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Underwriting of Projects with Section 8 HAP Contracts. New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYCHDC).

    Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 266.200(d) pertains to projects with Section 8 rental subsidies or other rental subsidies: For refinancing of Section 202 projects, and for Public Housing Agency (PHA) projects converting to Section 8 through RAD, HUD will permit NYCHDC to underwrite the financing using current or to be adjusted project-based Section 8 assisted rents, even though they exceed the market rates. This is consistent with HUD Housing Notice 04-21, “Amendments to Notice 02-16: Underwriting Guidelines for Refinancing of Section 202, and Section 202/8 Direct Loan Repayments”, which grants authority only to those lenders refinancing with mortgage programs under the National Housing Act.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. The waiver is consistent with changes that HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing is seeking now to the regulation and as previously approved in March 2015 for the first 11 HFAs participating in the Initiative. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.410(e).

    Project/Activity: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, for Crystal Lake Townhomes, Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 266.410(e) pertaining to amortization states that the mortgage must provide for complete amortization (i.e., regularly amortizing) over the term of the mortgage. This is financing under the Risk Sharing Program.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 5, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The granting of this waiver promotes preservation and affordability with minimal increased risk to the FHA Insurance Fund. Minnesota's HFA project is a 48-unit property located in the city of Grand Rapids. The approval, however, is subject to the following conditions: (1) Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) will assume 50 percent of the risk, and (2) annual property inspections will be performed with appropriate adjustments made to the replacement reserves as needed to ensure the Project is maintained in good physical condition. Minnesota will finance Crystal Lake Townhomes (Project) with a mortgage that will mature in November, 2041 with a small balloon payment of preservation property receiving the benefit of a Section 8 subsidy for all units.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 266.620(e).

    Project/Activity: Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative, Termination of Mortgage Insurance. New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYCHDC). Waivers of these 4 sections of the regulation were approved in March, 2015 for the first 11 HFAs approved to participate in the Initiative.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 266.620(e), pertains to termination of mortgage insurance provision (required for FFB Initiative). As required by the Initiative, New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYCHDC) agrees to indemnify HUD for all amounts paid to FFB if “the HFA or its successors commit fraud, or make a material misrepresentation to the Commissioner with respect to information culminating in the Contract of Insurance on the mortgage, or while the Contract of Insurance is in existence”. Only Level I HFAs are eligible for FFB financing, thereby ensuring the HFA maintains financial capacity to perform under the indemnification agreement. If the HFA loses its “A” rating, HFA must post the required reserve account as outlined in 24 CFR part 266.

    Granted By: Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The waiver was necessary to effectuate the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) Risk Sharing Initiative between Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury Department/FFB announced in Fiscal Year 2014. There are 11 qualified HFAs participants. Concurrent with the rollout of the FFB Initiative, HUD's Office of Multifamily is beginning the process of making regulatory changes to these same provisions. Under this Initiative, FFB provides capital to participating Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) to make multifamily loans insured under the FHA Multifamily Risk Sharing Program.

    Contact: Theodore K. Toon, Director, FHA Multifamily Production, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-8386.

    IV. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing

    For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1), 24 CFR 902.33(c) and 902.62(a)(3).

    Project/Activity: Colorado Division of Housing (CO911) Denver, CO.

    Nature of Requirement: These regulations establish certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 29, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The Housing Authority (Section 8-only entity) requested a waiver to obtain additional time to allow for input of its FYE June 30, 2014 audited financial data into the FASS online system. The State's single audited financial information had recently been submitted.

    Contact: Scott Sherman, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7975.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1), 24 CFR 902.33(c) and 902.62(a)(3).

    Project/Activity: Center Housing Authority (CO043) Center, CO.

    Nature of Requirement: These regulations establish certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 29, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The Housing Authority requested a waiver to obtain additional time to allow for input of its FYE June 30, 2014 audited financial data into the FASS online system, and to remove the LPF score of zero as it pertains to the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS). The HAs auditor was involved in an auto accident. The audited data was subsequently submitted on April 1, 2015 (one-day late).

    Contact: Scott Sherman, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7975.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Easton Housing Authority (MD019) Easton, MD.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 13, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The HA requested a waiver to obtain an extension (until May 15, 2015) to submit its audited financial data for FYE June 30, 2014. The HA indicated that additional time is necessary due to extensive damages incurred to its Administrative office resulting in ruptured pipelines that destroyed computers and files.

    Contact: Scott Sherman, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7975.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).

    Project/Activity: Tallahassee Housing Authority (FL073), Tallahassee, FL.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 6, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The Housing Authority (HA) requested a waiver of 24 CFR 5.110 to obtain a 60-day extension (until May 30, 2015) to submit its audited financial data for fiscal year end (FYE) June 30, 2014. The HA experienced numerous ledger balances and accounting errors due to fraud, having difficulty procuring a qualified Finance Director, and had recently converted to a new software system.

    Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.516(a)(2)(ii).

    Project/Activity: Raleigh County Housing Authority (RCHA), Raleigh, NC.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.516(a)(2)(ii) states that the public housing agency must obtain and document in the tenant file third-party verification of the value of assets or must document in the tenant file why third-party verification was not available.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 13, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The majority of participants have less than $5,000 in asset income; (2) the cost of obtaining third-party documentation is borne by participants; and (3) waiting for such documentation frequently delays the completion of interim and annual reexaminations. A proposed regulation issued by the Department and published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2015 (Streamlining Administrative Regulations for Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher, Multifamily Housing, and Community Planning and Development Programs) would likewise authorize self-certification of assets of $5,000 or less.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) and 982.503(c)(2).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA), Hayward, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) states that a PHA's voucher payment standard schedule shall establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. The regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2) states that the HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from above 110 percent of the published fair market rents (FMR) if the HUD Field Office determines that approval is justified by either the median rent method or the 40th or 50th percentile rent method and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 5, 2015.

    Reason Waived: These regulations were waived to allow HACA to establish payment standards at 120 percent of the FMR for all bedroom sizes in all areas of the county for its HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. These families generally have a more difficult time finding units before their vouchers expire and require 40 percent more voucher extensions than non-HUD-VASH families in a low vacancy area.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (CDLA), Denver, CO.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: April 15, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the participant's current unit that meets the participant's needs To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in the participant's current unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the CDLA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA), Hayward, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: April 16, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the participant's current unit that meets the participant's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in the participant's current unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, HACA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA), Hayward, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: April 16, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the participant's current new unit that meets the participant's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in participant's unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the HACA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), San Francisco, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 7, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The two HUD-VASH participants, who are persons with disabilities, each required an exception payment standard to move to accessible units that met their needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participants could move to these units and pay no more than 40 percent of their adjusted income toward the family share, the SFHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Boston Housing Authority (BHA), Boston, MA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: June 3, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The client, whose child is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard so that the child could remain in the unit without being rent burdened. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client and child could remain in their current unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, BHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA), Hayward, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: June 8, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the participant's current unit that meets the participant's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in the participant's current unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the HACA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: City of Chandler Housing and Redevelopment Division (CCHRD), Chandler, AZ.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: June 9, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the participant's current unit that meets the participant's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in this unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the CCHRD was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), San Francisco, CA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: June 9, 2015.

    Reason Waived: A HUD-VASH applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to accessible unit that met the person's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the applicant could move to this unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the SFHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: City of Des Moines Housing Services Department (CDMHS), Des Moines, IA.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: June 15, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the current unit that meets the participant's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in this unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the CCHRD was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).

    Project/Activity: Washington County Department of Housing Services (WCDHS), Hillsboro, OR.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a PHA may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: June 23, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in the current unit that meets the participant's needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the participant could remain in this unit and pay no more than 40 percent of adjusted income toward the family share, the WCDHS was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of Gloucester County (HAGC), Deptford, NJ.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: April 17, 2015.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the HAGC's fiscal year ending December 31, 2014. The HAGC experienced an emergency in its public housing units and due to the time and effort to rehouse the affected families, the HAGC was unable to submit its SEMAP certification on or before March 1, 2015.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the Borough of Glassboro (HABG), Deptford, NJ.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: April 21, 2015.

    Reason Waived: This waiver was granted because for the HABG's fiscal year ending December 31, 2014. The Housing Authority of Gloucester County (HAGC) submits the SEMAP certification for HABG. HAGC experienced an emergency in its public housing units and due to the time and effort to rehouse the affected families, the HAGC was unable to submit the SEMAP certification for HABG on or before March 1, 2015.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: Bath Township Housing Commission (BTHC), Bath, MI.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: April 21, 2015.

    Reason Waived: BTHC provided documentation that, on February 18, 2015, it sent an email to REAC_TAC to report that it was unable to enter the fair market rents and payment standards of its SEMAP certification into the SEMAP module of IMS/PIC. It was also documented that REAC_TAC did not respond to BTHC until after the deadline noted above. The date of the email was March 9, 2015.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).

    Project/Activity: City of Balch Springs (CBS), Balch Springs, TX.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 29, 2015.

    Reason Waived: The executive director was out of the office the week of Thanksgiving from November 24 through November 27, 2014. The SEMAP certification was due on November 29, 2014. The SEMAP coordinator was out of the office due to a family emergency at the same time and there was no time to prepare and submit the SEMAP certification by the deadline.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    • Regulation: 24 CFR 983.51(b).

    Project/Activity: Pasco County Housing Authority (PCHA), Dade City, FL.

    Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 983.51(b) states that PHA must select project-based voucher (PBV) proposals in accordance with the selection procedures in the PHA's administrative plan by either a request for proposals or, alternatively, a selection of a proposal for housing assisted under a federal, state or local government housing assistance, community development or supportive services program that required a competitive selection of proposals.

    Granted By: Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

    Date Granted: May 18, 2015.

    Reason Waived: HUD's Office of Public Housing Investments reported that PCHA, in partnership with Pasco County, applied for and received a HUD FY 2012 Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant for the Lacoochee/Trilby area of Pasco County. PCHA owns two USDA Farmers Home developments, Cypress Manor (24 units) and Cypress Farms (102 units). The public housing units at Cypress Villas I (27 units) and Cypress Villas II (12 units) and the USDA units are contiguous with a similar look and need for improved conditions at the sites. However, the USDA units are no longer eligible for additional loans. By attaching PBV units to 25 USDA units (the maximum allowed under 24 CFR 983.56) at Cypress Farms, debt for the USDA units could be leveraged and improvements made.

    Contact: Becky Primeaux, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.

    [FR Doc. 2015-23486 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5841-N-03] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; HUD Standard Grant Application Forms: Detailed Budget Form (HUD-424-CB), Budget Worksheet (HUD-424CBW), Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), and the Third-Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal Form (HUD-96011) AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

    DATES:

    November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval numbers (2535-0017), (2525-0018), (4040-0004) and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; Telephone (202) 402-4300, (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at [email protected]; for a copy of the proposed form and other available information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dorthera Yorkshire, AJT, Grants Management and Oversight Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410; email: [email protected]; telephone (202) 402-4336; Fax (202) 708-0531 (this is not a toll-free number) for other available information. If you are a hearing-or-speech-impaired person, you may reach the above telephone numbers through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

    This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    This Notice lists the following information:

    Grant Application Detailed Budget Form (HUD-424-CB) Grant Application Detailed Budget Worksheet (HUD-424-CBW) OMB Control Number: 2501-0017 Facsimile Transmittal Form (HUD-96011) OMB Control Number: 2535-0118 Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) OMB Control Number: 4040-0004

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD-Common Budget Form and Worksheet intended to offer consolidated and streamlined grant application processes in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 106-107, The Federal Financial Assistance Improvement Act of 1999.

    Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-424CB and HUD-424CBW.

    Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the forms for each grant application is one (1) hour, however, the burden will be assessed against each individual grant program submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act; number of respondents is 9,091; frequency of response is on the occasion of application for benefits.

    Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Authority:

    Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The use of the Third-Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal Form allows the Department to collect the same information electronically as we would for a paper-based application. It also produces an electronic version of the document that will be matched with the electronic application submitted through grants.gov to HUD.

    Agency form numbers, if applicable: Third-Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal Form (HUD-96011).

    Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the forms for each grant application is 5 minutes per response, however, the burden will be assessed against each individual grant program submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act; number of respondents is 33,000 frequency of response is on the occasion of application for benefits.

    Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Authority:

    Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This is a standard form required for use as a cover sheet for submission of pre-applications and applications and related information under discretionary programs. Some of the items are required and some are optional at the discretion of the applicant or the federal agency (agency). Required fields on the form are identified with an asterisk (*) and are also specified as “Required” in the instructions below. In addition to these instructions, applicants must consult agency instructions to determine other specific requirements.

    Agency form numbers, if applicable: SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance.

    Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response. An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the forms for each grant application is estimated to average 30 minutes per response however, the burden will be assessed against each individual grant program submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act; number of respondents is 33,000 frequency of response is on the occasion of application for benefits.

    Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Authority:

    PL: Pub. L. 106-107 468 Name of Law: Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. PL: Pub. L. 109-282 2590 Name of Law: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Julie D. Hopkins, Grants Management and Oversight, Director, Office of Strategic Planning and Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23463 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCOF02000 L14400000.ER0000; COC-49757] Notice of Realty Action; Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification for Lease in Chaffee County, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined and found suitable for classification for lease under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 860 et seq.), approximately 19.34 acres of public land in Chaffee County, Colorado. The BLM proposes to amend the Colorado Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) existing R&PP Lease (COC-49757) to include the following 19.34 acres in the BLM Salida East Recreation area. The BLM and CPW jointly manage a number of recreation sites in the Arkansas River corridor under a cooperative management agreement. Public lands jointly managed by the BLM and CPW are designated as the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA). The lands requested in the CPW's lease amendment application are located on public lands within the river corridor and are currently managed by the BLM as a developed recreational facility. If the lease is approved the lands will become part of the AHRA. An R&PP lease to CPW will allow improvements in the Salida East facilities and enhance opportunities for public recreation and public safety.

    DATES:

    Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed classification of lands, or lease of the land, on or before November 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments concerning this notice should be addressed to: Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 East Main St., Cañon City, CO 81212.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Brown, Realty Specialist, BLM Front Range District Office, by phone (719) 852-6260, or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following public land in Chaffee County, Colorado, has been examined and found suitable for classification, for lease, to CPW under the provisions of the R&PP Act, as amended (43 U.S.C 869 et seq.):

    A certain parcel of land, located entirely within government lots 17, 18 and 19, sec. 10, T. 49 N., R. 9 E., N.M.P.M., as surveyed in the official plat of record, accepted December 22, 1999, T. 49 N., R. 9 E., NMPM, Sec. 10, described as follows:

    Beginning at corner no. 1 of Tract 37, as surveyed in the official plat of record, accepted December 22, 1999; thence northerly along the western boundary of government lot 17 to the intersection of the centerline of the Arkansas River; thence southeasterly along the centerline of the Arkansas River to the intersection of the southerly boundary of sec. 10; thence westerly, along the southern boundary of sec. 10 to the intersection with the northerly Right-of-Way for U.S. Highway 50, as described in the BLM Right-of-Way Grant No. COD-0-054071; thence northwesterly along said U.S. Highway 50 Right-of-Way to a point at the intersection of the projected 3-4 line of said Tract 37 and the said U.S. Highway Right-of-Way; thence northeasterly to corner no. 3 of said Tract 37; thence along the 3-4 line of said Tract 37 to corner no. 4 of said Tract 37; thence along the 4-5 line of said Tract 37 to corner no. 5 of said Tract 37; thence along the 5-6 line of said Tract 37 to corner no. 6 of said Tract 37; thence along the 6-1 line of said Tract 37 to corner no. 1 of said Tract 37, the point of beginning.

    Excluding any portions of any valid and existing mining claims located within the above described parcel at the time of the publication of this notice.

    The above described parcel of land contains 19.34 ac. more or less, as determined through official records.

    The land is not needed for any Federal purpose other than for current and proposed recreational purposes. The lease is consistent with current bureau land use planning and would be in the public interest.

    Detailed information concerning this proposed project, including, but not limited to documentation relating to compliance with applicable environmental and cultural resource laws, is available for review at the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office at the address above.

    Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the lands described above will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public lands laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease under the R&PP Act; leasing under the mineral leasing laws; and disposal under the mineral material disposal laws.

    Classification Comments: Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for joint management by the BLM and CPW with the additional improvements and upgrades proposed by CPW. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

    Application Comments: Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development that would amend R&PP lease COC- 49757 and whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to lease under the R&PP Act.

    Any comments will be reviewed by the BLM who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this notice will become effective November 17, 2015.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2741.5.

    Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23483 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [F-14851-B2, F-14874-B2; LLAK940000-L14100000-HY0000-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), approving conveyance of the surface estate in the lands described below to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., Successor in Interest to Deering Ipnatchiak Corporation, and Katyaak Corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., when the surface estate is conveyed to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., as Successor in Interest to Deering Ipnatchiak Corporation, and Katyaak Corporation.

    DATES:

    Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for the time limits for appealing the decision.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960 or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1 800-877-8339 to contact the BLM during normal business hours. In addition, the FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the BLM. The BLM will reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the BLM to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., Successor in Interest to Deering Ipnatchiak Corporation, and Katyaak Corporation. The decision approves the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601, et. seq.). The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., when the surface estate is conveyed to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., Successor in Interest to Deering Ipnatchiak Corporation, and Katyaak Corporation. Deering Ipnatchiak Corporation, and Katyaak Corporation were the original ANCSA corporations for the villages of Deering and Kiana, and merged with NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. in 1976 under the authority of Public Law 94-204.

    The lands are located in the vicinity of Deering and Kiana, Alaska and are described as:

    Kateel River Meridian, Alaska T. 18 N., R. 9 W., Sec. 21. Containing 640 acres. T. 6 N., R. 17 W., Secs. 1 to 36, inclusive. Containing 22,923.84 acres. T. 7 N., R. 18 W., Secs. 16 to 36, inclusive. Containing 13,319.47 acres. Aggregating 36,883.31 acres.

    Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in the Arctic Sounder.

    Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:

    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until October 19, 2015 to file an appeal.

    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.

    Ralph L. Eluska, Sr., Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Division of Lands and Cadastral.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23480 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service [15XL LLIDI02000 L71220000.EO0000-LVTFDX508400 241A 4500080287] Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Rasmussen Valley Mine, Caribou County, Idaho AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior; United States Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), Caribou-Targhee National Forest (CTNF), have prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Rasmussen Valley Mine, and by this Notice are announcing the opening of the comment period.

    DATES:

    To ensure comments will be considered, the Agencies must receive written comments on the Rasmussen Valley Mine Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes their Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce any future public meetings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media news releases, or mailings.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 303-471-3472.

    Mail: Rasmussen Valley Mine EIS, ARCADIS U.S., Inc., 630 Plaza Drive, Suite 100, Highlands Ranch, CO 80129.

    Please reference “Rasmussen Valley Mine EIS” on all correspondence. CD-ROM and print copies of the Rasmussen Valley Mine Draft EIS are available in the BLM Pocatello Field Office at the following address: 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, ID 83204. In addition, an electronic copy of the Draft EIS is available at either of the Web addresses listed below:

    BLM Land Use Planning and NEPA Register: http://on.doi.gov/1GpGxyW.

    Caribou-Targhee National Forest Current and Recent Projects: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ctnf/landmanagement/projects.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William (Bill) Volk, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello Field Office, telephone 208-236-7503; address at 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, ID 83204; email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Nu-West Industries, Inc., doing business as Agrium Conda Phosphate Operations (Agrium), has submitted a mine plan for the Rasmussen Valley Mine to exercise their existing contractual rights to recover phosphate ore reserves contained within Federal Phosphate Lease I-05975 (the Lease). They have also filed an application to modify this lease by increasing its size by 170 acres. The Proposed Action would include 440.4 acres of new disturbance and develop a new open pit phosphate mining operation on the Lease that would include mining the pit in panels, backfilling depleted panels with overburden, storing overburden in piles external to the pit, construction of a haul road, development of a water management plan, and construction of other ancillary facilities. Ore would be processed off site at Agrium's Conda Phosphate Operations (CPO) Fertilizer Manufacturing Plant northeast of Soda Springs. The mine would be located in Caribou County approximately 18 miles northeast of Soda Springs, Idaho, on the southwestern flank of Rasmussen Ridge and adjacent to portions of Rasmussen Valley near the headwaters of the Blackfoot River.

    The proposed Rasmussen Valley Mine would be developed on BLM-managed lands within an existing Federal phosphate lease; on National Forest System lands within and outside of an existing Federal phosphate lease with surface administered by the Soda Springs Ranger District, on the Blackfoot River Wildlife Management Area within and outside of the Federal phosphate lease with the surface administered by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and on split estate, private land with minerals administered by the BLM. The Lease grants the lessee, Agrium in this case, exclusive rights to mine and otherwise dispose of the federally-owned phosphate deposit. Under the proposed action a lease modification would increase the size of the lease by 170 acres. A portion of the proposed action would also be outside of the Federal phosphate lease on State land administered by the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL).

    As directed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and in accordance with NEPA, the BLM will evaluate and respond to the mine plan and issue decisions related to the development of the phosphate lease, consider the no action alternative, and decide whether to approve the proposed mine plan. The USFS will make recommendations to the BLM concerning surface management and mitigation on leased lands within the CTNF, and will make separate decisions on special use authorizations for off-lease activities within the CTNF. The BLM, as the Federal lease administrator, is the lead agency for the Draft EIS. The USFS is the joint-lead agency and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are cooperating agencies. The IDL, IDFG, Idaho Department of Water Resources, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have also participated in the preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS provides the analysis upon which the BLM and other involved agencies can base decisions regarding the project.

    Under the Proposed Action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled to Agrium's existing Wooley Valley Tipple, then by existing rail to Agrium's CPO Fertilizer Plant approximately 12 miles to the southwest. The Proposed Action would consist of using open pit mining methods to mine a pit in phases (panels), backfill and reclaim pits; construct permanent and temporary external overburden and ore piles, growth media stockpiles, haul roads; realign portions of the county roads; construct power lines, staging and fuel storage area, water supply wells, and runoff sediment control structures; leave high wall exposures in portions of the backfilled pit; and extend the pit and associated backfill beyond the Lease boundary in several locations requiring Lease modification.

    A Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 11259) on March 1, 2011, initiating a public scoping period for the Proposed Action. During scoping, issues and concerns that were expressed included impacts to wetlands; impacts to surface water and groundwater potentially resulting from releases of selenium and other constituents of potential concern (COPC) from waste rock; physical stability of proposed external overburden piles; management of pit water; impacts to wildlife and associated wildlife habitat, especially on the Blackfoot River Wildlife Management Area; and maximum phosphate resource recovery.

    To address these issues, several alternatives were considered. Two of these alternatives, Alternative One—the Rasmussen Collaborative Alternative and the No Action Alternative, were carried forward for full analysis in the Draft EIS. Alternative One is the agency preferred alternative and would include 371.7 acres of new disturbance. Elements included in Alternative One are: Relocating the haul road to avoid wetlands; reducing the potential for selenium and other COPCs to impact surface water and groundwater by placing overburden originally scheduled for external overburden piles in an existing open pit at P4's nearby South Rasmussen Mine, resulting in the elimination of three external overburden piles and the associated concern for stability of the natural foundation under these piles and impacts to water resources by COPCs; limiting pit depth to reduce the concern for the management of pit water; shaping pit backfill and external overburden piles to reduce the risk of ponded water on or in the pit, and designing a cover to place over the backfill and overburden to reduce the risk of deep percolation of water; maximizing phosphate resource recovery by extending the pit north; reducing the size of the BLM lease modification contained in the Proposed Action to 100 acres while still accommodating extension of the mine pit, external overburden piles, temporary growth media stockpiles, and ancillary mine features beyond the current Lease boundaries. If the mine is extended, USFS Special Use Authorizations and State of Idaho Temporary Use Authorizations will also be needed.

    Under the No Action Alternative, the Rasmussen Valley Mine Plan would not be approved for mining, and no associated development would occur on the existing lease. Similarly, associated requests such as the lease modification application would not be approved. The No Action Alternative would not provide ore for the CPO and would leave the mineral resource unmined. The resources would not be developed under the 2011 Proposed Action. However, the No Action Alternative does not preclude application and approval of future Mine and Reclamation Plans for the site because of pre-existing mining rights granted in the existing Lease.

    To facilitate understanding and comments on the Draft EIS, public meetings are planned to be held in Soda Springs and Pocatello, Idaho. Meetings will be open-house style, with displays explaining the project and a forum for commenting on the draft EIS. The BLM will announce dates, times, and locations of the public scoping meetings in mailings and news releases.

    Written and electronic comments regarding the Draft EIS should be submitted within 45 days of the date of publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. To assist the BLM and the USFS in identifying issues and concerns related to this project, comments should be as specific as possible. The portion of the proposed project related to special use authorizations for off-lease activities is subject to the USFS's objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. Only those who provide comment concerning the off-lease activities during this comment period or who have previously submitted specific written comments on the off-lease activities, either during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment, will be eligible as objectors to the off-lease activities (36 CFR 218.5). BLM appeal procedures found in 43 CFR 4 apply to the portion of the project related to activities proposed on the Federal mineral lease(s).

    Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of respondents will be available for public review and disclosure at the above BLM address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Before including your phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 43 CFR part 46; 43 U.S.C. 1701; 43 CFR part 3510; and 43 CFR part 3590.

    Jeremy Casterson, Acting District Manager, Idaho Falls District, Bureau of Land Management. Robert Mickelsen, Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23412 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AA-10731, AA-10785, AA-10786, AA-10788, AA-11135, AA-11146, AA-12448; LLAK-944000-L14100000-HY0000-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Decision Approving Lands for Conveyance.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), approving conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in the lands described below to Chugach Alaska Corporation (formerly known as Chugach Natives, Inc.), pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

    DATES:

    Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for the time limits for appealing the decision.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960 or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the BLM during normal business hours. In addition, the FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the BLM. The BLM will reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the BLM to Chugach Alaska Corporation (formerly known as Chugach Natives, Inc.). The decision approves conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq). The lands are located in the Chugach National Forest, and contain/aggregate 80.78 acres. Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in the Alaska Dispatch News.

    Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:

    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until October 19, 2015 to file an appeal.

    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.

    Loch Anderson, Land Law Examiner, Adjudication Section.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23481 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NER-PAGR-18936; PX.P0156924I.00.1] Notice of Termination of the Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan for Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Termination.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service (NPS) is preparing a general management plan (GMP) for Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park. A Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the GMP was published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2011. The NPS has decided to terminate the EIS and instead, has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the GMP (GMP/EA).

    DATES:

    The GMP/EA is expected to be distributed for public review and comment during the fall of 2015. The NPS will provide information on when the GMP/EA will be released for public review, the dates of the public comment period, and the dates that public meetings will be held on the park's planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/pagr and through local and regional media.

    ADDRESSES:

    Refer to the park's planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/pagrforadditionalinformationonwhereandhowtoobtainacopyoftheGMP/EA, how to comment on the GMP/EA, and locations of upcoming public meetings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Darren Boch, Superintendent; Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park; 72 McBride Avenue; Paterson, NJ 07501.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park's first general management plan and will provide the framework for guiding resource management, visitor experiences, facilities and partnerships. The issues addressed by the GMP include: Sustaining the park's fundamental resources; providing for safe, sustainable public access and recreational activities; building new and reinforcing existing partnerships to protect the park's natural and cultural resources; and improving facilities and infrastructure that meets the needs of both visitors and the community. GMP planning and alternatives development incorporated input from park partners; participants in local community meetings; consultation with local, regional, and national government agencies; and comments gathered during the Paterson Great Falls Advisory Commission meetings. The public was informed about the process and invited to participate through the park's Web site, newsletters, emails, letters, and local media.

    The GMP was originally scoped as an EIS; however, internal discussions and input received during public and agency scoping did not raise any potentially significant environmental issues nor has the impact analysis identified any potentially significant adverse impacts. It is also noted that many of the actions proposed in the GMP/EA will have benefits to the park's resources, operational needs, and visitor experiences. For these reasons the NPS determined that an EA is the appropriate level of environmental review for the GMP.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Brian Strack, Associate Regional Director; Planning, Facilities & Conservation Assistance, Northeast Region, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23452 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-WV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM-2015-0078; MMAA104000] Revised Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability.

    SUMMARY:

    BOEM is announcing the availability of a revised Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for commercial wind lease issuance, site characterization activities (geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys), and site assessment activities (including the installation and operation of a meteorological tower and/or buoys) on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf offshore North Carolina. The revised EA provides a discussion of potential impacts of the proposed action and an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), BOEM issued a FONSI supported by the analysis in the revised EA. The FONSI concluded that the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives, as set forth in the EA, would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment; therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. These documents and associated information are available on BOEM's Web site at http://www.boem.gov/North-Carolina/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Morin, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1340 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In January 2015, BOEM published an EA to consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences associated with commercial wind lease issuance, site characterization activities, and site assessment activities in three wind energy areas (WEAs) offshore North Carolina. The 2015 EA considered all three North Carolina WEAs for leasing and approval of site assessment plans as the proposed action under NEPA. A Notice of Availability was published on January 23, 2015 to announce the availability of the EA and initiate a 30-day public comment period (80 FR 3621). The EA was subsequently revised based on comments received during the comment period and public information meetings. The revised EA provides updated environmental data, additional details on how the WEAs were delineated, and analysis of potential effects to the proposed critical habitat expansion for North Atlantic right whales, which was published during the public comment period for the 2015 EA. A summary of comments received on the 2015 EA and BOEM's responses to those comments is also provided in the revised EA.

    In addition to the proposed action, the revised EA considers the following alternatives: Exclusion of the Wilmington West WEA from leasing; seasonal restrictions on certain site characterization activities; and no action. BOEM's analysis of the proposed action and alternatives takes into account standard operating conditions (SOCs) designed to avoid or minimize potential impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles. The SOCs can be found in Appendix B of the revised EA.

    BOEM will use the revised EA to inform decisions to issue leases in the North Carolina WEAs, and to subsequently approve site assessment plans on those leases. BOEM may issue one or more commercial wind energy leases in the North Carolina WEAs. The competitive leasing process is set forth at 30 CFR 585.210 through 585.225. If a lessee is prepared to propose a wind energy generation facility on its lease, the lessee can submit a Construction and Operations Plan (COP) to BOEM. BOEM would then prepare a separate site- and project-specific NEPA analysis based on the activities proposed in the COP.

    Authority:

    This Notice of Availability for an EA is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.), and is published pursuant to 43 CFR 46.305.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Abigail Ross Hopper, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-22988 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-031] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    September 24, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Preliminary) (Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on September 25, 2015; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on October 2, 2015.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 15, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23586 Filed 9-16-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Veterans' Employment and Training Service Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach AGENCY:

    Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor (DOL).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 4110 of Title 38, U.S. Code, and the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and its implementing regulations issued by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO, or the Committee). The ACVETEO's responsibilities are to: (a) Assess employment and training needs of veterans and their integration into the workforce; (b) determine the extent to which the programs and activities of the Department are meeting such needs; (c) assist the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training (ASVET) in conducting outreach to employers with respect to the training and skills of veterans and the advantages afforded employers by hiring veterans; (d) make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor, through the ASVET, with respect to outreach activities and the employment and training needs of veterans; and (e) carry out such other activities deemed necessary to making required reports and recommendations under section 4110(f) of Title 38, U.S. Code. Per section 4110(c)(1) of Title 38, U.S. Code, the Secretary shall appoint at least twelve, but no more than sixteen, individuals to serve as Special Government Employees of the ACVETEO as follows: Seven individuals, one each from the following organizations: (i) The Society for Human Resource Management; (ii) the Business Roundtable; (iii) the National Association of State Workforce Agencies; (iv) the United States Chamber of Commerce; (v) the National Federation of Independent Business; (vi) a nationally recognized labor union or organization; and (vii) the National Governors Association. The Secretary shall appoint not more than five individuals nominated by veterans' service organizations that have a national employment program and not more than five individuals who are recognized authorities in the fields of business, employment, training, rehabilitation, or labor and who are not employees of DOL. The term of membership for all Committee members is February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2018.

    DATES:

    Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on October 15, 2015. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle. Please allow three weeks for regular mail delivery to the Department of Labor.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nomination packages should be sent to the Assistant Designated Federal Official by email to [email protected] subject line “2016 ACVETEO Nomination” or mail to the following address: Department of Labor/VETS, Attn: Gregory Green, Room S-1312, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory B. Green, Assistant Designated Federal Official, ACVETEO, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-1312, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-4734.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOL is soliciting nominations for members to serve on the Committee. As required by statute, the members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary from the general public. DOL seeks nominees with the following experience:

    (1) Diversity in professional and personal qualifications;

    (2) Experience in military service);

    (3) Current work with Veterans;

    (4) Veterans disability subject matter expertise;

    (5) Experience working in large and complex organizations;

    (6) Experience in transition assistance;

    (7) Experience in the protection of employment and reemployment rights; and/or

    (8) Experience in education, skills training, integration into the workforce and outreach.

    Requirements for Nomination Submission: Nominations should be typewritten (one nomination per nominator). The nomination package should include:

    (1) Letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes, including military service, if applicable, that qualifies the nominee for service in this capacity);

    (2) Statement from the nominee indicating willingness to regularly attend and participate in Committee meetings;

    (3) Nominee's contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone number(s), and email address;

    (4) Nominee's curriculum vitae or resume;

    (5) Summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications relative to the experience listed above;

    (6) Nominee biography; and

    (7) Statement that the nominee has no apparent conflicts of interest that would preclude membership.

    Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee will be reimbursed for per diem and travel for attending Committee meetings. The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, gender, and racial and ethnic minority groups, and that the disabled are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 11, 2015. Teresa W. Gerton, Acting Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training.
    [FR Doc. 2015-23411 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Wage and Hour Division Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Information Collections Requests To Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and Contract Works Hours and Safety Standards Act AGENCY:

    Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed revision to the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and Contract Works Hours and Safety Standards Act.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. A copy of the proposed information request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Control Number 1235-0023, by either one of the following methods: Email: [email protected]; Mail, Hand Delivery, Courier: Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Instructions: Please submit one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions received must include the agency name and Control Number identified above for this information collection. Because we continue to experience delays in receiving mail in the Washington, DC area, commenters are strongly encouraged to transmit their comments electronically via email or to submit them by mail early. Comments, including any personal information provided, become a matter of public record. They will also be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the information collection request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Waterman, Acting Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background: The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor (DOL) administers the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and Davis-Bacon Related Acts (DBRA), 40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq., and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA), 40 U.S.C. 3701et seq. Regulations 29 CFR part 5 prescribe labor standards for federally financed and assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, and labor standards for all contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The DBA and DBRA require payment of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits, as determined by the Department of Labor, to laborers and mechanics on most federally financed or assisted construction projects. The CWHSSA requires the payment of one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a week on most federal contracts involving the employment of laborers or mechanics. The requirements of this information collection consist of: (1) Reports of conformed classifications and wage rates, and (2) requests for approval of unfunded fringe benefit plans.