Federal Register Vol. 80, No.197,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 197 (October 13, 2015)

Page Range61273-61715
FR Document

80_FR_197
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 61474 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
80 FR 61275 - Delegation of Authority Under Sections 506(a)(1) and 552(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961PDF
80 FR 61273 - Delegation of Authority Under the National Defense HEADAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015PDF
80 FR 61424 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 61495 - In the Matter of Energy Northwest; Columbia Generating StationPDF
80 FR 61500 - Virginia Electric and Power Company; North Anna Power Station; Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 61333 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Evaluating Reasonableness of Price for Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2013-D034)PDF
80 FR 61454 - United States v. Cox Enterprises, Inc. et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 61503 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 61406 - Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Jatropha Curcas Oil for Use in Biofuel ProductionPDF
80 FR 61419 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 61443 - Albuquerque Indian School District-Liquor Control OrdinancePDF
80 FR 61566 - Senior Executive Service; Legal Division Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 61441 - Notice of Certain Operating Cost Adjustment Factors for 2016PDF
80 FR 61317 - Interpretation of Notification Requirements To Exclude Model Aircraft; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 61373 - Water Infrastructure Business Development Mission to Singapore, Vietnam, and the PhilippinesPDF
80 FR 61562 - Twentieth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (225) Rechargeable Lithium Battery and Battery SystemsPDF
80 FR 61362 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
80 FR 61361 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2013 and Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, in PartPDF
80 FR 61369 - Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 61447 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; Control Number 1004-0058PDF
80 FR 61318 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason AdjustmentsPDF
80 FR 61371 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 61402 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, HanfordPDF
80 FR 61358 - Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone-Hitchcock, Texas; Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
80 FR 61366 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
80 FR 61403 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PortsmouthPDF
80 FR 61372 - Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty OrdersPDF
80 FR 61443 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of a 5-Year Review of the Polar BearPDF
80 FR 61336 - Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels for the Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 61425 - Issuance of Final Guidance PublicationsPDF
80 FR 61448 - BLM Director's Responses to the Appeals by the Governors of Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah Governors of the BLM State Directors' Governor's Consistency Review DeterminationPDF
80 FR 61384 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 61365 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Negative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 61368 - Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 61561 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Six DDTC Information CollectionsPDF
80 FR 61552 - Bureau of Consular Affairs; Registration for the Diversity Immigrant (DV-2017) Visa ProgramPDF
80 FR 61376 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 61383 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61293 - Infant Formula: The Addition of Minimum and Maximum Levels of Selenium to Infant Formula and Related Labeling Requirements; Confirmation of Effective DatePDF
80 FR 61436 - National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 61433 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Quantitative Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television AdvertisementsPDF
80 FR 61430 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Recommended Recordkeeping for Cosmetic Good Manufacturing PracticesPDF
80 FR 61382 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61388 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61423 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 61422 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 61392 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61400 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61332 - Request for Comment on the Effectiveness of Financial Disclosures About Entities Other Than the RegistrantPDF
80 FR 61564 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
80 FR 61386 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61359 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 61564 - Michael R. Bennett and Workplace Compliance; Removal from the Public Interest Exclusion ListPDF
80 FR 61376 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Research Activities in Central California, 2015-2016PDF
80 FR 61439 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Recruitment Milestone Reporting SystemPDF
80 FR 61332 - Disguised Payments for Services; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 61389 - Defense Business Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 61387 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61358 - In the Matter of Rex Gene Maralit, Inmate Number-80731-053, FCI Ashland, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 6001, Ashland, KY 41105: Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 61440 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request: International HIV/AIDS Research Fellowship Award Program (NIDA)PDF
80 FR 61302 - Design Standards for HighwaysPDF
80 FR 61563 - Federal Transit Administration Notice To Rescind the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Baltimore Red Line Project Baltimore County and City, MarylandPDF
80 FR 61395 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61401 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program General Forbearance RequestPDF
80 FR 61402 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Student Right-to-Know (SRK)PDF
80 FR 61564 - Notifications of Trails Act Agreement and Substitute SponsorshipPDF
80 FR 61419 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61425 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61298 - Physical Medicine Devices; Reclassification of Shortwave Diathermy for All Other Uses, Henceforth To Be Known as Nonthermal Shortwave TherapyPDF
80 FR 61426 - Organon USA Inc. et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 67 New Drug Applications and 128 Abbreviated New Drug ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 61308 - Notional Principal Contracts; Swaps With Nonperiodic PaymentsPDF
80 FR 61423 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 61298 - New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Penicillin G ProcainePDF
80 FR 61293 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor's AddressPDF
80 FR 61384 - Global Positioning System Directorate (GPSD) Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 61403 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 61511 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 61404 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 61405 - Combined Notice Of FilingsPDF
80 FR 61405 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 61390 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61494 - Information Collection: NRC Form 748, National Source Tracking Transaction ReportPDF
80 FR 61396 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61381 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61439 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 61436 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 61437 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 61438 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 61393 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61471 - Renewal of the Native American Employment and Training Council (NAETC) CharterPDF
80 FR 61389 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61504 - Excepted ServicePDF
80 FR 61507 - Excepted ServicePDF
80 FR 61277 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in MississippiPDF
80 FR 61436 - Meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Children and DisastersPDF
80 FR 61492 - In the Matter of Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, Combined Licenses for South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4; Notice of HearingPDF
80 FR 61356 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Civil Rights Issues in the State, and Potential Next Project Topics for the Committee's InvestigationPDF
80 FR 61357 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nebraska Advisory Committee To Discuss Findings and Recommendations Resulting From Its Inquiry Into the Civil Rights Impact of Nebraska's 2009 Legislative Bill 403PDF
80 FR 61357 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee to Discuss Themes and Findings Resulting From Testimony Received Regarding Civil Rights and Police/Community Interactions in the StatePDF
80 FR 61422 - Notice of Termination; 10404, Piedmont Community Bank, Gray, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 61540 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt and Implement CHX SNAP SMPDF
80 FR 61421 - Consumer Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 61503 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the Acrs Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 61499 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Structural Analysis; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 61469 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc.PDF
80 FR 61469 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Unither Manufacturing, LLCPDF
80 FR 61470 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Apertus PharmaceuticalsPDF
80 FR 61470 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambridge Isotope LabPDF
80 FR 61495 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on AP1000PDF
80 FR 61397 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61475 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the Acrs Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 61471 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center (OVC TTAC) Feedback Form PackagePDF
80 FR 61309 - Safety Zone, Great Egg Harbor Bay; Somers Point, NJPDF
80 FR 61535 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61539 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61536 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61512 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61551 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61379 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery PlansPDF
80 FR 61527 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7270 (Block Trades)PDF
80 FR 61513 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change for New Equity Trading Rules Relating to Auctions for Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology PlatformPDF
80 FR 61529 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange ServicesPDF
80 FR 61537 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Active Specialized Quote Feed Port FeePDF
80 FR 61545 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Merge FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc. Into and With FINRA Regulation, Inc.PDF
80 FR 61476 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 61502 - Expanded River Reconnaissance Paleoliquefaction Study AreaPDF
80 FR 61475 - Southern California Edison; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3PDF
80 FR 61563 - Sixty-Fourth Meeting: Special Committee (186) Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)PDF
80 FR 61335 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61472 - SGS North America, Inc.: Application for Expansion of RecognitionPDF
80 FR 61398 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61378 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Groundfish Tagging ProgramPDF
80 FR 61399 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61394 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61422 - Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or ManagerPDF
80 FR 61420 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 61311 - Air Plan Approval; MI; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2PDF
80 FR 61391 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61420 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 61424 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
80 FR 61327 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 61278 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Filings for Electronic Entry/Entry Summary (Cargo Release and Related Entry)PDF
80 FR 61475 - Membership of National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 61375 - Administration National Sea Grant Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 61330 - Airworthiness Directives; Dowty Propellers Constant Speed PropellersPDF
80 FR 61646 - Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Measurement of GasPDF
80 FR 61610 - Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid PipelinesPDF
80 FR 61402 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Grants Under the Talent Search ProgramPDF
80 FR 61568 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Five Species From American SamoaPDF
80 FR 61334 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments; Renewal of a Currently Approved Collection: Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants and AwardeesPDF

Issue

80 197 Tuesday, October 13, 2015 Contents Agency Toxic Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61423-61424 2015-25920 Statements of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 61424 2015-25775 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants and Awardees, 61334-61335 2015-25233
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61381-61384 2015-25815 2015-25908 2015-25956 2015-25961 Meetings: Global Positioning System Directorate, 61384 2015-25917 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgements and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., et al., 61454-61469 2015-26042 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61386-61387 2015-25945 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 61384-61386 2015-25972 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61424 2015-26067 Issuance of Final Guidance Publications, 61425 2015-25974 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61425-61426 2015-25924 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 61356-61357 2015-25891 Missouri Advisory Committee, 61357-61358 2015-25889 Nebraska Advisory Committee, 61357 2015-25890 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Great Egg Harbor Bay; Somers Point, NJ, 61309-61311 2015-25872 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Aquisition Regulation Supplements: Evaluating Reasonableness of Price for Commercial Items, 61333 2015-26044 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61387-61400 2015-25817 2015-25830 2015-25831 2015-25843 2015-25847 2015-25849 2015-25854 2015-25874 2015-25877 2015-25898 2015-25902 2015-25909 2015-25911 2015-25929 2015-25937 2015-25950 2015-25953 Meetings: Defense Business Board, Federal Advisory Committee, 61389 2015-25939
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Unither Manufacturing, LLC, 61469 2015-25881 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc., 61469-61470 2015-25882 Apertus Pharmaceuticals, St. Louis, MO, 61470-61471 2015-25880 Cambridge Isotope Lab, 61470 2015-25879 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Grants under the Talent Search Program, 61402 2015-25354 Student Assistance General Provisions: Student Right-to-Know, 61402 2015-25927 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program General Forbearance Request, 61401-61402 2015-25928 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Native American Employment and Training Council, 61471-61472 2015-25899 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford, 61402-61403 2015-25982 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth, 61403 2015-25979
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 61311-61317 2015-25839 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants (Renewal), 61419 2015-26037 Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Jatropha Curcas Oil for Use in Biofuel Production, 61406-61419 2015-26039 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61419-61420 2015-25816 2015-25925 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 61327-61330 2015-25758 Dowty Propellers Constant Speed Propellers, 61330-61332 2015-25643 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Special Committee (225) Rechargeable Lithium Battery and Battery Systems, 61562-61563 2015-26006 Special Committee Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, 61563 2015-25852 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61420-61421 2015-25841 Meetings: Consumer Advisory Committee, 61421-61422 2015-25885 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: 10404, Piedmont Community Bank, Gray, GA, 61422 2015-25887 Updated Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation, 61422 2015-25842 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 61403-61406 2015-25912 2015-25913 2015-25914 2015-25916 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES Design Standards for Highways, 61302-61308 2015-25931 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 61422 2015-25951 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 61423 2015-25952 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Records of Decisions; Rescissions: Baltimore Red Line Project, Baltimore County and City, MD, 61563 2015-25930 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Five Species from American Samoa; Endangered Status, 61568-61607 2015-25298 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Initiation of a 5-Year Review of the Polar Bear, 61443 2015-25977 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Infant Formula: Addition of Minimum and Maximum Levels of Selenium to Infant Formula and Related Labeling Requirements; Effective Date Confirmation, 61293 2015-25960 Medical Devices: Physical Medicine Devices; Shortwave Diathermy for All Other Uses, Henceforth To Be Known as Nonthermal Shortwave Therapy; Reclassification, 61298-61302 2015-25923 New Animal Drugs: Application Approvals and Withdrawals of Approval; Changes of Sponsor and Sponsor's Address, 61293-61298 2015-25918 Penicillin G Procaine; Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Application Approval, 61298 2015-25919 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Quantitative Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements, 61433-61435 2015-25958 Recommended Recordkeeping for Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practices, 61430-61433 2015-25957 New Drugs: Organon USA Inc. et al.; Applications and Abbreviated Applications; Withdrawal of Approval, 61426-61430 2015-25922 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 61564-61566 2015-25947 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone under Alternative Site Framework: Hitchcock, TX, 61358 2015-25981 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters, 61436 2015-25894
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps, 61436 2015-25959 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Certain Operating Cost Adjustment Factors for 2016, 61441-61442 2015-26016 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Liquor Control Ordinances: Albuquerque Indian School District, 61443-61447 2015-26021 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Rex Gene Maralit, 61358-61359 2015-25936 Wilfredo Maralit, 61359-61360 2015-25944 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Notional Principal Contracts; Swaps With Nonperiodic Payments, 61308 2015-25921 PROPOSED RULES Disguised Payments for Services; Extension of Comment Period, 61332 2015-25940 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, 61369-61371 2015-25988 Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan, 61368-61369 2015-25966 Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, 61361-61362 2015-25989 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China, 61372-61373 2015-25978 Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 61365-61368 2015-25967 2015-25980 Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey, 61362-61365, 61371-61372 2015-25983 2015-25990 Water Infrastructure Business Development Mission to Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines, 61373-61375 2015-26013 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center Feedback Form Package, 61471 2015-25873
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau PROPOSED RULES Onshore Oil and Gas Operations: Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Measurement of Gas, 61646-61715 2015-25556 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61447 2015-25987 Responses to the Appeals by the Governors of Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, etc., 61448-61454 2015-25973 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61335-61336 2015-25851 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61474 2015-26128 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: International HIV/AIDS Research Fellowship Award Program, 61440-61441 2015-25935 National Institute of Mental Health Recruitment Milestone Reporting System, 61439-61440 2015-25941 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 61437-61438 2015-25904 National Cancer Institute, 61436-61437 2015-25905 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 61438-61439 2015-25903 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 61439 2015-25906 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments, 61318-61326 2015-25986 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Groundfish Tagging Program, 61378-61379 2015-25848 Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Plans, 61379-61381 2015-25866 Meetings: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 61376 2015-25962 Requests for Nominations: National Sea Grant Advisory Board, 61375-61376 2015-25681 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Seabird Research Activities in Central California, 2015-2016, 61376-61378 2015-25942 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Membership of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 61475 2015-25721 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board RULES Interpretation of Notification Requirements to Exclude Model Aircraft; Correction, 61317 2015-26015 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61400-61401 2015-25949 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Source Tracking Transaction Report, 61494-61495 2015-25910 Combined Licenses: Nuclear Innovation North America LLC; South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4, 61492-61494 2015-25892 Confirmatory Orders: Energy Northwest; Columbia Generating Station, 61495-61499 2015-26046 Director's Decisions: Southern California Edison San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, 61475-61476 2015-25856 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Expanded River Reconnaissance Paleoliquefaction Study Area, 61502-61503 2015-25858 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 61476-61492 2015-25860 License Amendments: Virginia Electric and Power Co., North Anna Power Station, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 61500-61502 2015-26045 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on AP1000, 61495 2015-25878 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA, 61503 2015-25884 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Structural Analysis, 61499-61500 2015-25883 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena, 61475 2015-25875 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61503-61504 2015-26041 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Applications: SGS North America, Inc.; Expansion of Recognition, 61472-61474 2015-25850 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Prevailing Rate System: Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in Mississippi, 61277-61278 2015-25895 NOTICES Excepted Service, 61504-61511 2015-25896 2015-25897 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, 61610-61643 2015-25359 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 61511-61512 2015-25915 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Memorandum of September 24, 2015), 61273 2015-26107 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of September 29, 2015), 61275 2015-26109 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES High Energy Cost Rural Communities Grant Program: Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels for Assistance, 61336-61356 2015-25975 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Effectiveness of Financial Disclosures about Entities Other Than the Registrant; Correction, 61332 2015-25948 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61512-61513, 61535-61537, 61539-61540, 61551-61552 2015-25867 2015-25868 2015-25869 2015-25870 2015-25871 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Active Specialized Quote Feed Port Fee, 61537-61539 2015-25862 BOX Options Exchange LLC, 61527-61529 2015-25865 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 61540-61545 2015-25886 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 61545-61551 2015-25861 NYSE Arca, Inc., 61513-61527, 61529-61535 2015-25863 2015-25864 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Six DDTC Information Collections, 61561-61562 2015-25965 Registration for the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, 61552-61561 2015-25964 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notifications of Trails Act Agreement and Substitute Sponsorship, 61564 2015-25926 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

NOTICES Removal from the Public Interest Exclusion List: Michael R. Bennett and Workplace Compliance, 61564 2015-25943
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Filings for Electronic Entry/Entry Summary (Cargo Release and Related Entry), 61278-61293 2015-25729 NOTICES Senior Executive Service Legal Division Performance Review Board; Member Appointments, 61566 2015-26020
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Filings for Electronic Entry/Entry Summary (Cargo Release and Related Entry), 61278-61293 2015-25729 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 61568-61607 2015-25298 Part III Transportation Department, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 61610-61643 2015-25359 Part IV Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 61646-61715 2015-25556 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.

80 197 Tuesday, October 13, 2015 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 532 RIN 3206-AN17 Prevailing Rate Systems; Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in Mississippi AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to establish special wage schedules specific to nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory wage employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) who work at flood control dams (also known as reservoir projects) at the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division. This final rule assigns lead agency responsibility for establishing and issuing these special wage schedules to the Department of Defense (DOD). The special wage schedules established will have rates of pay identical to the Memphis, TN, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage schedules and will be adjusted at the same times as those scheduled in the future.

DATES:

Effective date: This regulation is effective on October 13, 2015. Applicability date: This change applies on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after December 14, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2858 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 5, 2015, OPM issued a proposed rule (80 FR 32042) to establish special wage schedules specific to nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory wage employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) who work at flood control dams (also known as reservoir projects) at the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division.

The four lakes of the District are currently in two separate wage areas. The Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division is comprised of the following four lakes:

Lakes County Wage area Arkabutla Lake Tate County, MS Memphis, TN. Enid Lake Yalobusha County, MS Northern Mississippi. Grenada Lake Grenada County, MS Northern Mississippi. Sardis Lake Panola County, MS Memphis, TN.

Because a unique situation exists in the Vicksburg District in that all four lakes are managed as one installation, the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, recommended by majority vote that DOD establish and issue special wage schedules for USACE employees whose duty station is located in one of the lakes that comprise the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division. This final rule will create a special wage schedule practice in this unique circumstance as recommended by FPRAC. The special wage schedules will be established using rates identical to the Memphis, TN, appropriated fund FWS wage schedule.

The 30-day comment period ended on July 6, 2015. OPM received one comment from local agency management supporting this change. These special wage schedules will apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 60 days following publication of the final regulations. USACE employees with duty stations at one of the lakes of the Vicksburg District will transfer to the new special wage schedules on a step-by-step basis. No current employee will have his or her pay rate reduced as a result of implementing these new special wage schedules.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.

Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

2. Subpart B is amended by adding § 532.289 to read as follows:
§ 532.289 Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in Mississippi.

(a)(1) The Department of Defense will establish special wage schedules for wage employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who work at flood control dams (also known as reservoir projects) and whose duty station is located in one of the lakes that comprise the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division.

(2) These special wage schedules will provide rates of pay for nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory employees. These special schedule positions will be identified by pay plan codes XR (nonsupervisory), XT (leader), and XU (supervisory).

(b) The Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division is comprised of the following four lakes:

(1) Grenada Lake in Grenada County, MS (2) Enid Lake in Yalobusha County, MS (3) Sardis Lake in Panola County, MS (4) Arkabutla Lake in Tate County, MS

(c) Special wage schedules shall be established at the same time and with rates identical to the Memphis, TN, appropriated fund wage schedule.

[FR Doc. 2015-25895 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 4, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 24, 54, 102, 113, 123, 125, 128, 132, 134, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 158, 163, 174, 181, and 191 [CBP Dec. No. 15-14; USCBP-2015-0045] RIN 1515-AE03 Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Filings for Electronic Entry/Entry Summary (Cargo Release and Related Entry) AGENCIES:

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

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect that on November 1, 2015, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) will be a CBP-authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System. This regulatory document informs the public that the Automated Commercial System (ACS) is being phased out as a CBP-authorized EDI System for the processing electronic entry and entry summary filings (also known as entry filings). ACE will replace the Automated Commercial System (ACS) as the CBP-authorized EDI system for processing commercial trade data. This document also announces the conclusion of the ACE Cargo Release and the Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue tests with regard to the entry and entry summary requirements that are now part of the CBP regulations.

DATES:

Effective Date: This interim final rule is effective on November 1, 2015. Written comments must be submitted on or before November 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-2015-0045, by one of the following methods:

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

Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket title for this rulemaking, and must reference docket number USCBP-2015-0045 . All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the document.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected during business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For policy questions related to ACE, contact Josephine Baiamonte, Director, Business Transformation, ACE Business Office, Office of International Trade, at [email protected]. For technical questions, contact Steven Zaccaro, Client Representative Branch, ACE Business Office, Office of International Trade, at [email protected]. For legal questions, contact Robert Altneu, Chief, Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this interim rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP in finalizing these regulations will reference a specific portion of the interim rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments.

I. Background A. Statutory Authority

Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1484), establishes the requirement for importers of record to make entry for merchandise to be imported into the customs territory of the United States. Customs entry information is used by CBP and partner government agencies to determine whether merchandise may be released from CBP custody.

The customs entry requirements were amended by Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, December 8, 1993), commonly known as the Customs Modernization Act, or Mod Act. In particular, section 637 of the Mod Act amended section 484(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(1)(A)) by revising the requirement to make and complete customs entry by submitting documentation to CBP, to also allow in the alternative, the transmission of entry information electronically pursuant to a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. Further, section 634 of the Mod Act amended section 401 of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1401) to add definitions related to the electronic filing of the entry and entry summary. The term “electronic entry” is defined as the electronic transmission to CBP of entry information required for the entry of merchandise, and entry summary information required for the classification and appraisement of the merchandise, the verification of statistical information, and the determination of compliance with applicable law. The term “electronic transmission” is defined as the transfer of data or information through an authorized electronic data interchange system consisting of, but not limited to, computer modems and computer networks. The term “electronic data interchange system” is defined as any established mechanism approved by the CBP Commissioner through which information can be transferred electronically.

To implement the Mod Act, CBP has been modernizing the business processes essential to securing U.S. borders, facilitating the flow of legitimate shipments, and targeting illicit goods. The key automated system behind these initiatives is the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is the backbone of CBP trade data processing and risk management activities and provides a single, centralized access point to connect CBP, other International Trade Data System (ITDS) agencies, and the trade community.

B. Executive Order 13659

On February 19, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, in order to reduce unnecessary procedural requirements to commerce while continuing to protect our national security, public health and safety, the environment, and natural resources. See 79 FR 10657 (February 25, 2014). Pursuant to EO 13659, participating Federal agencies shall have capabilities, agreements, and other requirements in place to utilize the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and supporting systems, such as the Automated Commercial Environment, as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export no later than by December 31, 2016.

CBP will complete the development of core trade processing capabilities in ACE and decommission corresponding capabilities in legacy systems by the end of 2016. At that time, ACE will provide a Single Window for processing trade data, and become the primary system through which the international trade community will submit import and export data and the Government will determine admissibility.

C. Current Regulations

CBP established the specific requirements and procedures for the electronic filing of entry and entry summary data for imported merchandise through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI), originally a module of the Automated Commercial System (ACS), in a final rule (T.D. 90-92) published in the Federal Register. See 55 FR 49879 (December 3, 1990). The CBP regulations, in Subparts A and D of part 143 in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), allow for electronic filing of customs entry and entry summary information through the ABI. ABI is defined as a module of the Automated Commercial System (ACS) that allows entry filers to transmit immediate delivery, entry, and entry summary data to CBP and to receive electronic messages. ACS is defined as CBP's integrated comprehensive tracking system for the acquisition, processing and distribution of import data. See 19 CFR 143.32.

D. Transitioning ABI From ACS to ACE

CBP has been developing and testing ACE over the last several years as the successor EDI system to ACS. CBP has provided significant public outreach through events and on-line information to help ensure that the international trade community is fully engaged in the transition from ACS to ACE as the system authorized by the Commissioner for processing entry and entry summary information. CBP has conducted numerous tests of the filing of entries and entry summaries through ACE. See Section E below.

During the transition from ACS to ACE, filers have continued to use the ABI functionality to transmit entry and entry summary information both to the ACS and ACE EDI systems. In this document, CBP is announcing, consistent with 19 U.S.C. 1401, that, with the conclusion of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) tests discussed below, ACE will be an authorized electronic data interchange system authorized by the Commissioner to which entry and entry summary filings (also known as entry filings) can be transmitted electronically. It should be noted that Reconciliation entries are not affected by this change. See 63 FR 6257 (February 6, 1998). Reconciliation entries will continue to be filed under the procedures, terms and conditions governing Reconciliation.

E. National Customs Automation Program

As part of the transition from ACS to ACE, CBP has been conducting tests of ACE under the NCAP. The NCAP was established by Subtitle B of the Mod Act. See 19 U.S.C. 1411. The two tests relevant to the regulatory amendments included in this document are the Cargo Release test and the Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue, or ESAR, test.

1. ACE Cargo Release Test

On November 9, 2011, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 69755) announcing an NCAP test concerning ACE Simplified Entry to simplify the entry process by eliminating the submission of redundant data elements required to obtain release for cargo imported by air. This test does not eliminate the submission of unique data elements. In a general notice titled “Modification of National Customs Automation Program Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Cargo Release” published in the Federal Register (78 FR 66039) on November 4, 2013, CBP modified the ACE Simplified Entry test and renamed it the ACE Cargo Release test. The Cargo Release Test provided more capabilities to test participants and eliminated the requirement that test participants join the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) in order to increase participation. CBP modified the Cargo Release Test in a general notice published in the Federal Register (79 FR 6210) on February 3, 2014, to include the ocean and rail modes of transportation, and again in a general notice published in the Federal Register (80 FR 7487) on February 10, 2015, to change the name of one data element and allow authorized importers and licensed customs brokers to submit the Cargo Release entry and the Importer Security Filing (ISF) in a combined transmission to CBP. In addition, on March 27, 2015, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 16414) to further modify the Cargo Release test to allow importers and customs brokers to file type 03 entries (i.e., entries for merchandise subject to countervailing or antidumping duties) for all modes of transportation and to file, for cargo transported in the truck mode, entries for split shipments or partial shipments, and entry on cargo which has been moved in-bond from the first U.S. port of unlading.

2. Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR) Test

CBP has published several notices announcing ACE tests related to the Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR) capabilities. The first of these test notices (ESAR I), published by CBP in the Federal Register on October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59105), provided for enhanced account management functions for ACE Portal Accounts and expanded the universe of ACE account types. On August 26, 2008, CBP published a General Notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 50337) announcing the ESAR II test that concerned new Portal and EDI capabilities specific to entry summary filing and processing of consumption and informal entries. That notice stated that functionality will include ABI Census Warning Overrides and issuance of CBP requests for information and notices of action through the ACE Portal, and that new functionality will enhance Portal Account Management and allow for ACE Secure Data Portal reporting. On March 6, 2009, CBP published the ESAR III test notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 9826) that announced the port-by-port phased deployment strategy for the ESAR II functionality. On June 24, 2011, CBP announced the ESAR IV test in the Federal Register (76 FR 37136). That test permitted importers to file post-summary corrections (PSCs) of certain ACE entry summaries using ABI.

F. Amendments to the CBP Regulations

The Cargo Release and ESAR Tests will terminate only with regard to requirements directly related to automated entry and entry summary that do not involve data from other ITDS agencies upon the effective date of this rule. Test participants may continue to participate in the test until that date.

As a result of the two tests discussed above having been successful, CBP is amending its regulations to provide that ACE is a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange (EDI) system for processing electronic entry and entry summary filings with CBP. As of the end of February 2016, CBP anticipates that ACE will be fully functional for filing entry and entry summary so that ACS will no longer be available for entry filings. CBP encourages filers to adjust their business practices by filing in ACE as of the effective date of this rule.

This rule amends sections 12.140, 24.23, 128.11, 128.23, 141.57, 141.58, 143.1, 143.31, 143.32, and 174.12 to replace references to the Automated Commercial System, or ACS, each place it appears in these sections with the phrase “ACE or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.” In section 24.23(a)(4)(i), regarding the Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF), we are retaining the reference to ACS, because that system will continue to be used to process payments, including MPF. We are adding the words “or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system” to enable CBP to transition the payment processing functions to ACE at a later date.

This rule further amends certain definitions concerning the entry of merchandise in 19 CFR 141.0a to reflect that ACE is the CBP-authorized EDI system for processing trade data. In particular, the definitions for the following terms are revised to indicate filers may also submit required entry information electronically to ACE, as well as by paper, to CBP: “entry,” “entry summary,” “submission,” “filing,” “entered for consumption,” “entered for warehouse,” and “entered temporarily under bond.” Similarly, this rule amends the definitions related to the special entry procedures in 19 CFR 143.32 to replace reference to ACS with reference to ACE. Specifically, this rule also revises in 19 CFR 143.32 the definitions of the terms “ABI,” “electronic immediate delivery,” and “statement processing,” and adds a definition of the term “authorized electronic data interchange system,” to indicate that ACS is will no longer be the only CBP-authorized EDI system.

As the Automated Broker Interface, or ABI, continues to be the functionality that allows entry filers to transmit immediate delivery, entry and entry summary data to CBP, and to receive transmissions from CBP, there is no need to amend references to that term. However, this rule amends 19 CFR 143.32 to correct the definition of ABI which currently defines ABI as a module of ACS. This definition is inaccurate because ABI is a functionality that operates separately from ACS.

This rule further amends the document filing procedures within 19 CFR parts 4, 7, 10, 12, 18-19, 24, 54, 102, 113, 123, 125, 128, 132, 134, 141-146, 148, 151-152, 158, 163, 174, 181, and 191 by providing filers with the option of transmitting electronic data to CBP. Specifically, this rule amends these parts to allow filers, in the alternative, to submit the electronic equivalent of CBP Forms (including CBP Forms 28, 29, 247, 434, 3229, 3289, 3299, 3311, 3461, 4315, 4455, 4457, 4647, 7501, 7533, and 7552) and other documents that may be required by CBP or other government agencies at the time of entry. These documents include the records and information required for the entry of merchandise listed in the Appendix to part 163 (commonly referred to as the “(a)(1)(A)” list). This amendment does not mean that an electronic equivalent exists, but merely that an electronic equivalent may be used when such an equivalent exists. Lastly, this rule makes technical corrections to the nomenclature of “Customs” or “Customs Service” to “CBP” in some existing regulatory text, and updates some text to comply with the Plain English initiative in regulatory drafting.

In consideration of the business process changes that may be necessary to achieve full compliance and to provide members of the trade community with sufficient time to transition from ACS to ACE, filers are encouraged to adjust their business practices at the current time so that they can file in ACE before the end of February of 2016 when it is anticipated that ACS will no longer be supported for entry and entry summary. Filers who have technical questions should contact their assigned client representative. Filers without an assigned client representative should contact Steven Zaccaro, Client Representative Branch, ACE Business Office, Office of International Trade, at [email protected]. Additional information regarding the automation of the entry and entry summary processes is available on the following Web page: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated.

Filers interested in participating in these tests should review the notices published in the Federal Register. See e.g., National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning the Submission of Certain Data Required by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety and Inspection Service Using the Partner Government Agency Message Set Through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), 78 FR 75931 (December 13, 2013); Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Document Image System (DIS) Relating to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Document Submissions, 80 FR 5126 (January 30, 2015); and Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning the Use of Partner Government Agency Message Set through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for the Submission of Certain Data Required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 80 FR 6098 (February 4, 2015). Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes; Availability of Pilot Program and Filing Instructions to Test the Collection of Import Data for Implementation of the International Trade Data System, 80 FR 47558 (August 7, 2015).

G. Conclusion of Cargo Release and ESAR Tests

This document announces the conclusion of the Cargo Release and the Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue tests only with regard to the entry and entry summary requirements that are now part of the CBP regulations. All other aspects of the Cargo Release and the Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue tests remain on-going until ended by announcement in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

H. Proposal To Eliminate Hybrid Filing

Importers currently can file required forms electronically to a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, by paper, or a combination of both (hybrid filing). When importers file a paper or hybrid entry, they fill out the required documents on their computer, print the documents, and then send the documents to their broker or to the port of entry by either mail or a courier. CBP is considering proposing a rule to require importers to choose between submitting the required entry and entry summary documentation (including ITDS Agency documents) entirely electronically or entirely by paper. CBP would no longer accept any hybrid filings, except in limited circumstances. This would mean that if an importer files one paper document not covered by the limited exceptions, the entire filing, including the report to CBP, must be on paper.

While CBP is considering this proposal, comments are invited on all aspects of a policy to eliminate hybrid filings, including economic, operational, and feasibility of implementation. In particular, CBP is interested in data and views on the following:

1. Assessments of costs of implementing the proposal, including IT, training, and compliance. Comments should include a discussion about how the requirement to file all on paper or all in electronic form, if adopted, would affect business operations, cost to government of processing paper, and impact on health, safety, and the environment when enforcement and compliance agencies may see electronic data reduced.

2. Assessment of net benefits that may include processing enhancements, savings in processing time, and other perceived quantitative and qualitative benefits.

3. Estimates of time needed to comply with the proposal, if adopted.

4. Suggestions for including regulatory flexibilities such as phased-in compliance dates, exceptions, and safe harbors that will ease compliance for filers, especially those filers that are small entities.

5. Suggestions as to documentation and data that should be excepted from the proposed policy and supporting information to explain the appropriateness of the exception.

II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Inapplicability of Notice

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3), public notice is inapplicable to these interim regulations because they concern matters relating to agency procedure and practice inasmuch as the changes involve updates to the format of the electronic submission of data to CBP's proprietary electronic data interchange (EDI) system from ACS to ACE for persons filing required information related to the importation of merchandise pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1401 and 1484. Further, good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 808(2), to issue these regulations without a delay in effective date. The transition from ACS to ACE does not substantively alter the underlying rights or interests of importers or filers, only the manner in which they present required information to the agency. By shifting to a modified electronic format for the submission of required data, CBP will be able to more efficiently determine whether merchandise presented for importation is admissible into the United States. In addition, although this interim rule will be codified on November 1, 2015, CBP anticipates that filers can continue to file in ACS or ACE until February 2016, when ACE will be fully functional for filing entry and entry summary. Accordingly, CBP and Treasury have determined that the requirements for prior notice and a delay in effective date are inapplicable, however the agencies are soliciting comments in this interim rule and will consider all comments received before issuing a final rule.

B. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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 (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. OMB believes that this rule is an “economically significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

When importing to the United States, importers may file the required entry and entry summary documents to CBP in two ways: By paper or electronically through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI). The technical requirements to file in ABI are spelled out in the CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (the CATAIR), which is available to the public on CBP's Web page.1 The CATAIR is updated frequently due to changing technical specifications.

1See http://www.cbp.gov/trade/acs/catair and http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair.

If the importer chooses to file electronically, it submits the required data in ABI and the data then gets transmitted from ABI to a CBP system for processing. Originally, ABI transmitted the data to only the Automated Commercial System (ACS). Currently, the data can be transmitted to either ACS or the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), depending on whether the importer has met the relevant CATAIR requirements.

The existing regulations set forth the requirements for how filers interact with CBP through ABI. In doing so, the regulations make reference to ACS several times. This rule replaces the ACS references in the regulations with “ACE or any other CBP-authorized EDI system.” This regulation also corrects the definition of ABI, which is currently defined as a module of ACS. This is an erroneous definition since ABI exists separately from ACS and is simply a functionality by which importers can file entries with CBP. With this rule, importers will continue to be able to file their entries electronically via ABI, which will now transmit all the entry data to ACE.

CBP acknowledges that importers and software developers who have not already made the changes required to transmit their entry information from ABI to ACE rather than to ACS will need to make these changes to comply with the ABI CATAIR specifications. The change in technical specifications for ABI filing is independent from this regulatory change. (Technical specifications change frequently and are done independently of any regulatory action.) What follows is a short analysis of the costs of the systems changes, some portion of which may be attributable to this rule.

Based on conversations with members of the trade community on CBP's Technical Advisory Group,2 the costs of making the required systems changes to meet the CATAIR specifications to use ABI to transmit entries to ACE rather than to ACS are rather small. According to CBP's ACE Business Office, approximately 95 percent of importers who file entries electronically purchase software licenses from third-party software developers to more easily file entries in ABI. These software developers, and a small number of importers who file directly with CBP, would need to make programming changes to their software to make it compatible with ACE, if they have not already done so. Software developers charge an annual fee for the use of their software, which covers the cost of software updates, maintenance, and training. The developers do not anticipate raising rates as a result of making changes to ACE.

2 The Technical Advisory Group advises CBP on ACE from the perspective of the Trade. It is made up of representatives of the trade community who are involved in the entry process, including importers, brokers, and software developers.

The cost of making software compatible with ACE will fall on the software developers and the 5 percent of importers who do not purchase a software product, because they develop their own software. CBP's ACE Business Office estimates that 150 businesses will need to make software modifications, including 112 importers who self-file and 38 software developers. According to the Technical Advisory Group, the cost of making these changes is covered by the existing fees software developers charge to their users. Many of these parties have already made the changes to take advantage of the added functionality available in ACE. According to CBP's ACE Business Office, of the 38 software developers that provide software to facilitate the filing of entries, 36 have already modified their systems to allow for filing in ACE. CBP does not know how many of the 112 self-filers have already modified their systems, but it is likely that many of these self-filers have already made the necessary changes. According to CBP data, as of April 2015, 53 percent of entries were filed in ABI in an ACE-compatible format. According to an estimate from a member of the Technical Advisory Group, it can cost from $25,000 to $90,000 to make the change to ACE formatting, including systems costs and training. This estimate also includes all the costs of converting to ACE, not just the cost of making the changes necessary to file entries in ACE format, so the actual costs necessary to file entries in ACE format is likely to be lower. Based on the range of costs to convert to ACE formatting, we estimate that it will cost our estimated 112 software vendors and 38 self-filers between $3.75 million and $13.5 million to file in ACE format. These estimates assume that all 150 software vendors and self-filers will incur costs to convert to ACE, which we previously noted is unlikely given that many of these parties have already made the change to take advantage of ACE's additional functionality. We invite comments on these estimates of system costs and on other transition costs.

This rule benefits the public by clarifying the information presented in the regulations regarding how importers interact with CBP via ABI. The broader regulatory and non-regulatory shift from ACS to ACE has substantial benefits to federal agencies and the public. Transitioning to ACE will expedite cargo processing; improve compliance with CBP and other government agency regulations; provide greater efficiency in receiving, processing, and sharing import data which will increase the effectiveness of federal agencies; and reduce redundant information requirements for the importing community. We note that these benefits of the transition to ACE are characterized by the same analytic difficulty as the costs; it is not clear what portion is attributable to this rule as opposed to other regulatory and non-regulatory actions. We invite comments that would allow for reasonable attribution of effects across these various actions.

C. 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 an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

As there is no collection of information proposed in this document, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.

Signing Authority

This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.

List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 4

Customs duties and inspection, Entry, Exports, Freight, Harbors, Imports, Maritime carriers, Pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

19 CFR Part 7

American Samoa, Coffee, Customs duties and inspection, Guam, Guantanamo Bay, Imports, Insular possessions, Johnston Islands, Kingman Reef, Liquor, Midway Islands, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wake Island, Wine.

19 CFR Part 10

Caribbean Basin initiative, Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 12

Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 18

Baggage, Bonds, Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Explosives, Foreign trade statistics, Freight, Imports, Merchandise in transit, Penalties, Prohibited merchandise, Railroad, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise, Surety bonds, Transportation in bond, Vehicles, Vessels.

19 CFR Part 19

Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Warehouses, Wheat.

19 CFR Part 24

Accounting, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Harbors, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Taxes.

19 CFR Part 54

Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 102

Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 113

Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

19 CFR Part 123

Administrative practice and procedure, Aircraft, Aliens, Baggage, Canada, Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Fees, Forms (Written agreement), Freight, Immigration, Imports, International boundaries (Land border), International traffic, Mexico, Motor carriers, Railroads, Repairs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Test programs, Trade agreements, Treaties, Vehicles, Vessels.

19 CFR Part 125

Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Government contracts, Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 128

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Entry, Express consignments, Freight, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 132

Agriculture and agricultural products, Customs duties and inspection, Quotas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 134

Canada, Country of origin, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling, Marking, Mexico, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 141

Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 142

Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 143

Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 144

Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses.

19 CFR Part 145

Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Lotteries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 146

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Imports, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 148

Airmen, Aliens, Baggage, Crewmembers, Customs duties and inspection, Declarations, Foreign officials, Government employees, International organizations, Privileges and immunities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Taxes, Trade agreements (U.S.-Canada Free-Trade Agreement).

19 CFR Part 151

Cigars and cigarettes, Cotton, Customs duties and inspection, Fruit juices, Laboratories, Metals, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sugar, Wool.

19 CFR Part 152

Appraisement, Classification, Customs duties and inspection, Valuation.

19 CFR Part 158

Computer technology, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Merchandise (lost, damaged, abandoned, exported), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 163

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 174

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Protests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 181

Administrative practice and procedure, Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 191

Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.

Amendments to the CBP Regulations

For the reasons stated above in the preamble, CBP amends parts 4, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 24, 54, 102, 113, 123, 125, 128, 132, 134, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 158, 163, 174, 181, and 191 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 4, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 24, 54, 102, 113, 123, 125, 128, 132, 134, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 158, 163, 174, 181, and 191) to read as follows:

PART 4—VESSELS IN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRADES 1. The general authority citation for Part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624, 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 501, 60105.

2. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: Section Words Add 4.41(a) Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, 4.94a Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent PART 7—CUSTOMS RELATIONS WITH INSULAR POSSESSIONS AND GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION 3. The authority citation for Part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624; 48 U.S.C. 1406i.

4. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: Section Words Add 7.3(f) Form 3229 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 10—ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED RATE, ETC. 5. The general authority citation for Part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314.

6. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: Section Words Add 10.1(g)(1) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(g)(2) introductory text Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(g)(3) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(h)(1) introductory text Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(h)(2) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(h)(3) introductory text Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(h)(5) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(i) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(j)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.1(j)(2) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.5(d) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 10.5(e) CF 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 10.5(f) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 10.5(g) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 10.6 Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.31(a)(1) Form 3461 or 7501 , or their electronic equivalents 10.31(a)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.31(a)(2) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.48(b) A declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 10.49(a) a declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 10.53(a) face of the entry , or its electronic equivalent, 10.53(e)(5) USFWS Form 3-177 , or its electronic equivalent 10.59(e) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.60(a) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent. 10.60(d) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.61 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.62(a) introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.62(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.62(c)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.62a(a) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.62a(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 10.66(a)(1) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent 10.66(a)(2) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.66(c)(1) introductory text Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.66(c)(2) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.67(a)(1) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent 10.67(a)(2) A declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 10.67(a)(3) A declaration of the ultimate consignee , or its electronic equivalent, 10.67(c) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.68(a) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent 10.68(a) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.68(c) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.69 Descriptive lists , or their electronic equivalents, 10.70(a) Department of Agriculture a certificate , or its electronic equivalent, 10.70(a) certificates of pedigree and transfer of ownership , or their electronic equivalents, 10.70(a) such certificates and transfers , or their electronic equivalents 10.71(a) a certificate of pure breeding , or its electronic equivalent, 10.80 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent. 10.81(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.84(b)(1) a certificate , or its electronic equivalent, 10.84(b)(2) a certificate , or its electronic equivalent, 10.84(b)(3) a certificate , or its electronic equivalent, 10.84(b)(4) of this section , or their electronic equivalents, 10.84(b)(6)(i) bill of lading , or the electronic equivalent, 10.84(b)(6)(ii) The certificate , or its electronic equivalent, 10.90(b) The invoice . or its electronic equivalent, 10.90(b) statement of the cost of production , or its electronic equivalent 10.98(c) a declaration of the importer , or its electronic equivalent, 10.99(a) a declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 10.101(b) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, 10.102(a) or bill , or their electronic equivalents, 10.102(a) pro forma invoice , or its electronic equivalent, 10.102(b) The certificates may be submitted electronically, 10.102(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 10.104 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 10.107(a)(1) a report , or its electronic equivalent, 10.121(a) U.S. Department of State , or its electronic equivalent, 10.179(a) certificate from the importer , or its electronic equivalent, 10.180(a) meat-inspection certificate , or its electronic equivalent, PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 7. The general authority citation for Part 12 and the sectional authority citation for § 12.140 continue to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.

Section 12.140 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1484, 2416(a), 2171;

8. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: Section Words Add 12.6(a)(1) An affidavit , or its electronic equivalent 12.6(a)(2) An affidavit , or its electronic equivalent 12.7(a) a valid permit , or its electronic equivalent, 12.11(a) a notice of arrival , or its electronic equivalent, 12.11(a) form , or its electronic equivalent, 12.11(a) the notice of arrival , or its electronic equivalent, 12.34(b) country of manufacture , or its electronic equivalent, 12.34(e) declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.41(a) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 12.43(a) certificate of origin , or its electronic equivalent, 12.43(a) an additional certificate , or its electronic equivalent, 12.43(b) a statement , or its electronic equivalent, 12.43(c) of this section , or their electronic equivalents, 12.80(e)(2) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent 12.85(c)(1) declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.85(c)(2) Declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.85(c)(2) A copy of the exemption , or its electronic equivalent 12.85(c)(3) declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.85(c)(4) declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.85(c)(5) declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.85(c)(6) declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.85(d)(1) Form CG-5096 , or its electronic equivalent 12.91(d) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent 12.99(a) introductory text a declaration , or its electronic equivalent 12.99(b) the declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 12.99(b) copy of the contract , or its electronic equivalent, 12.104c(a) A certificate , its electronic equivalent 12.104c(a) or permit , or their electronic equivalents, 12.104c(d)(1)(i) introductory text declarations under oath , or their electronic equivalents, 12.104c(d)(1)(ii) A statement , or its electronic equivalent, 12.104c(d)(2)(i) declarations under oath , or their electronic equivalents, 12.104c(d)(2)(ii) A statement , or its electronic equivalent, 12.104d or evidence , or the electronic equivalent, 12.104e(a) introductory text or evidence , or the electronic equivalent, 12.107(a) A certificate , or its electronic equivalent 12.140(b) introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 12.140(b)(2)(ii) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 12.142(c)(1) introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent
§ 12.140 [Amended]
9. Amend § 12.140, in paragraph (b)(1) by removing the words “Automated Commercial System” and adding in their place the words “Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system”.
PART 18—TRANSPORTATION IN BOND AND MERCHANDISE IN TRANSIT 10. The general authority citation for Part 18 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (general Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1551, 1552, 1553, 1623, 1624.

11. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 18.6(b) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent
PART 19—CUSTOMS WAREHOUSES, CONTAINER STATIONS AND CONTROL OF MERCHANDISE THEREIN 12. The general authority citation for Part 19 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624.

13. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 19.6(d)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 19.6(d)(5) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 19.9(c) 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 19.9(c) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, 19.11(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 19.11(g) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 19.14(a) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 19.15(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 19.15(d) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 24—CUSTOMS FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE 14. The general authority citation for Part 24 and the sectional authority for § 24.23 continue to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1520, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

Section 24.23 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 3332;

15. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 24.5(d) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 24.5(e) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 24.24(e)(2)(ii) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent
§ 24.23 [Amended]
16. Amend § 24.23, in paragraph (a)(4)(i) by adding after the words “Automated Commercial System (ACS)” the words “or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system”.
PART 54—CERTAIN IMPORTATIONS TEMPORARILY FREE OF DUTY 17. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i); Section XV, Note 5, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624.

18. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 54.5(b) declaration of the importer , or its electronic equivalent, 54.6(a) statement of the importer , or its electronic equivalent, 54.6(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent PART 102—RULES OF ORIGIN 19. The authority citation for part 102 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314, 3592.

20. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 102.23(a) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 102.23(a) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, 102.25 Certificate of Eligibility , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 102 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 102 Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 113—CUSTOMS BONDS 21. The general authority citation for part 113 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.

22. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 113.41 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 123—CBP RELATIONS WITH CANADA AND MEXICO 23. The general authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448,1624, 2071 note.

24. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 123.4(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 123.4(c) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 123.92(b)(2)(iii) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent PART 125—CARTAGE AND LITERAGE OF MERCHANDISE 25. The general authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1565, and 1624.

26. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 125.31(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 125.32 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent PART 128—EXPRESS CONSIGNMENTS 27. The authority citation for part 128 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1484, 1498, 1551, 1555, 1556, 1565, 1624.

28. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 128.24(b) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent 128.24(c) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, 128.24(d) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent
§ 128.11 [Amended]
29. Amend § 128.11, in paragraph (b)(7)(i) by removing the words “Customs Automated Commercial System (ACS) and associated modules,” and adding in their place the words “CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, and associated applications.”
30. Amend § 128.23 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 128.23 Entry requirements.

(b) Procedures—(1) General. All express consignment entities utilizing the procedures in this part must comply with the requirements of the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. These requirements include those under the Automated Manifest System (AMS), Cargo Selectivity, Statement Processing, the Automated Broker Interface System (ABI), and enhancements of ACE or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

(2) Entry number. All entry numbers must be furnished to CBP in a CBP approved bar coded readable format in order to assist in the processing of express consignment cargo under the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

PART 132—QUOTAS 31. The general authority citation for part 132 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1623, 1624.

32. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 132.11a(a)(1) entry summary for consumption, or its electronic equivalent, 132.11a(a)(2) entry summary for consumption, or its electronic equivalent, 132.11a(a)(3) entry summary for consumption, or its electronic equivalent, 132.13(a)(1)(i) entry summary for consumption, or its electronic equivalent, 132.13(a)(1)(ii) entry summary for consumption, or its electronic equivalent, 132.13(a)(1)(iii) introductory text the initial presentation of the entry summaries for consumption or withdrawals for consumption or their electronic equivalents, 132.13(a)(1)(iii)(A) or withdrawals for consumption, or their electronic equivalents, 132.13(a)(2) or withdrawal for consumption, , or their electronic equivalents, PART 134—COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING 33. The authority citation for part 134 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1304, 1624.

34. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 134.51(a) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent, 134.52(a) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 141—ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE 35. The general authority citation for part 141 and the sectional authority for § 141.66 continue to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1498, 1624.

Section 141.66 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1623.

36. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 141.57(d)(2) CF 3461/CF 3461 ALT, or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(d) introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(d)(1) 7501 (boxes 10 and 12) , or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(d)(1) (box 12) , or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(d)(1) (box 10) , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(d)(2) (box12) , or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(d)(2) (box 10) , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(d)(3) (box 22) , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(d)(4) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(e)(1)(i)(A) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(e)(1)(ii)(B) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.61(e)(1)(ii)(C) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(f)(1)(iv) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 141.61(f)(2)(i) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.68(g)(1) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 141.68(g)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.68(h) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 141.68(h) or 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 141.113(g) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent, 37. Revise § 141.0a to read as follows:
§ 141.0a Definitions.

Unless the context requires otherwise or a different definition is prescribed, the following terms will have the meanings indicated when used in connection with the entry of merchandise:

(a) Entry. “Entry” means that documentation or data required by § 142.3 of this chapter to be filed with the appropriate CBP officer or submitted electronically to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system to secure the release of imported merchandise from CBP custody, or the act of filing that documentation. “Entry” also means that documentation or data required by § 181.53 of this chapter to be filed with CBP to withdraw merchandise from a duty-deferral program in the United States for exportation to Canada or Mexico or for entry into a duty-deferral program in Canada or Mexico.

(b) Entry summary. “Entry summary” means any other documentation or electronic submission of data necessary to enable CBP to assess duties, and collect statistics on imported merchandise, and determine whether other requirements of law or regulation are met.

(c) Submission. “Submission” means the voluntary delivery to the appropriate CBP officer or electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system of the entry summary documentation or data for preliminary review or of entry documentation or data for other purposes.

(d) Filing. “Filing” means:

(1) The delivery to CBP, including electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, of the entry documentation or data required by section 484(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)), to obtain the release of merchandise, or

(2) The delivery to CBP, including electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, together with the deposit of estimated duties, of the entry summary documentation or data required to assess duties, collect statistics, and determine whether other requirements of law and regulation are met, or

(3) The delivery to CBP, including electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, together with the deposit of estimated duties, of the entry summary documentation or data, which will serve as both the entry and the entry summary.

(e) Presentation.Presentation” is used only in connection with quota-class merchandise and is defined in § 132.1(d) of this chapter.

(f) Entered for consumption. “Entered for consumption” means that an entry summary for consumption has been filed with CBP in proper form, including electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, with estimated duties attached. “Entered for consumption” also means the necessary documentation has been filed with CBP to withdraw merchandise from a duty-deferral program in the United States for exportation to Canada or Mexico or for entry into a duty-deferral program in Canada or Mexico (see § 181.53 of this chapter).

(g) Entered for warehouse. “Entered for warehouse” means that an entry summary for warehouse has been filed with CBP in proper form, including electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

(h) Entered temporarily under bond. “Entered temporarily under bond” means that an entry summary supporting a temporary importation under bond has been filed with CBP in proper form, including electronic submission to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

(i) Released conditionally. “Released conditionally” means any release from CBP custody before liquidation.

§ 141.57 [Amended]
38. Amend § 141.57, in paragraph (d)(2) by removing the words “through the Customs Automated Commercial System (ACS)” and replacing them with the words “to the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system”.
§ 141.58 [Amended]
39. Amend § 141.58, in paragraph (e) by removing the words “through the Customs Automated Commercial System (ACS)” and adding in their place the words “to the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system”.
§ 141.66 [Amended]
40. Amend § 141.66 by removing the word “documents” and adding in its place the word “documentation” in the heading; and removing the word “document” and adding in its place the word “documentation” in the regulatory text.
PART 142—ENTRY PROCESS 41. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.

42. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 142.3(a)(1) Form 3461 (appropriately modified) , or its electronic equivalent, 142.3(a)(1) Form 7533 (appropriately modified) , or its electronic equivalent, 142.3(a)(6) Form 3461, 3461 ALT, 7501 , or their electronic equivalents. 142.3(b)(1) Form 3461 or 7533 , or their electronic equivalents, 142.3(b)(2) 7501 or CBP Form 3311 , or their electronic equivalent 142.22(a) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent 142.24(a) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent 142.47(b) CF 3461 or 3461 Alternate , or its electronic equivalent,
43. Section 142.11 is revised to read as follows:
§ 142.11 Entry summary form.

(a) CBP Form 7501. The entry summary must be on the CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, unless a different form or format is prescribed elsewhere in this chapter. CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, must be used for merchandise formally entered for consumption, formally entered for warehouse, or rewarehouse in accordance with § 144.11 of this chapter, and formally entered temporarily under bond under § 10.31 of this chapter. The entry summary for merchandise which may be entered free of duty in accordance with § 10.1(g) or (h) may be on CBP Form 3311, or its electronic equivalent, instead of on a CBP Form 7501 (or its electronic equivalent). For merchandise entitled to be entered under an informal entry, see § 143.23 of this chapter.

(b) Extra copies. The port director may require additional copies of the entry summary if filed in paper.

44. Section 142.16 is revised to read as follows:
§ 142.16 Entry summary documentation.

(a) Entry summary not filed at time of entry. When the entry documentation is filed in paper before the entry summary documentation, one copy of the entry document and the commercial invoice, or the documentation filed in place of a commercial invoice in the instances listed in § 141.83(d) of this chapter, will be returned to the importer after CBP authorizes release of the merchandise. Entry documentation may also be transmitted electronically to the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. The importer may use these documents in preparing the entry summary, CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, and must file them with the entry summary documentation within the time period stated in § 142.12(b). The entry summary documentation also must include any other documentation required for a particular shipment unless a bond for missing documentation is on file, as provided in § 141.66 of this chapter.

(b) Entry summary filed at time of entry. When the entry summary documentation is filed or transmitted electronically at time of entry, the documentation listed in § 142.3 must be filed at the same time, except that CBP Form 3461 or 7533, or their electronic equivalents, will not be required. The importer also must file any additional invoice required for a particular shipment.

PART 143—SPECIAL ENTRY PROCEDURES 45. The authority citation for part 143 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1321, 1414, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1624, 1641.

46. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 143.12 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 143.13(a) statements of cost , or their electronic equivalents, 143.13(b) A declaration , or its electronic equivalent, 143.23 introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 143.23(b) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 143.23(c) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent, 143.23(f) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 143.23(h)(1) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 143.23(h)(2) Form 3311 , or its electronic equivalent, 143.23(h)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 143.24 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 143.25 heading entry form , or its electronic equivalent 143.25 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 143.32(g) Forms 7501, 3461 , or their electronic equivalents 143.32(h) Forms 7501 and 3461 , or their electronic equivalents 47. Section § 143.1 introductory text is revised to read as follows:
§ 143.1 Eligibility.

The Automated Broker Interface (ABI) allows participants to transmit data electronically to CBP through ABI and to receive transmissions from Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. Its purposes are to improve administrative efficiency, enhance enforcement of customs and related laws, lower costs and expedite the release of cargo.

§ 143.31 [Amended]
48. Amend § 143.31, in first sentence, by removing the words “Customs Automated Commercial System (ACS)” and adding in their place the words “CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system”.
49. Section 143.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (j) and (p) to read as follows:
§ 143.32 Definitions.

(a) ABI. “ABI” means the Automated Broker Interface functionality that allows entry filers to transmit immediate delivery, entry and entry summary data electronically to, and receive electronic messaging from, CBP and receive transmissions from Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.

(b) Authorized electronic data interchange system means any established mechanism approved by the Commissioner of CBP through which information can be transferred electronically.

(j) Electronic immediate delivery. “Electronic immediate delivery” means the electronic transmission of CBP Forms 3461 or 3461 alternate (CBP Form 3461 ALT) data to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system in order to obtain the release of goods under immediate delivery.

(p) Statement processing. “Statement processing” means the method of collection and accounting which allows a filer to pay for more than one entry summary with one payment. ACS, or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system, generates the statement, which is transmitted electronically to the filer, consisting of a list of entry summaries and the amount of duties, taxes or fees, if any, due for payment. Upon payment and collection of the statement, those entry summaries designated as electronic will be scheduled for liquidation (see § 24.25 of this chapter).

§ 143.33 [Amended]
50. Amend § 143.33 by removing the words “of ACS”.
PART 144—WAREHOUSE AND RE-WAREHOUSE ENTRIES AND WITHDRAWALS 51. The general authority citation for Part 144 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1557, 1559, 1624.

52. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 144.11(a) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.11(a) Form 3461 or 7533 , or their electronic equivalents, 144.11(b) heading and (b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.11(c) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.12 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.14 introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.22(a) introductory text Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.36(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.37(a) 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.38(a) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.38(e) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.41(b) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.41(d) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.42(b)(1) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 144.42(b)(2) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 144.42(b)(3) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent PART 145—MAIL IMPORTATIONS 53. The general authority citation for Part 145 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

54. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 145.4(c) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 145.12(b)(1) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 145.12(c) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent 145.12(e)(1) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent PART 146—FOREIGN TRADE ZONES 55. The authority citation for Part 146 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 81a-81u, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624.

56. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 146.62(a) or other applicable Customs forms , or their electronic equivalents 146.62(b)(1) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 146.62(b)(2) Form 7512 , or its electronic equivalent, 146.63(c)(1) (first, second and fourth sentences) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, 146.63(c)(1) (third sentence) Form 3461 , or its electronic equivalent 146.70(c) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 146 CF 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 146 CF 7501s , or their electronic equivalents, Appendix to Part 146 CF 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 148—PERSONAL DECLARATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS 57. The general authority citation for Part 148 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1496, 1498, 1624. The provisions of this part, except for subpart C, are also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States).

58. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 148.1(b) form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.1(b) Form 4457 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.1(b) form 4457 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.6(a) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.8(b) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 148.8(c) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 148.32(b) introductory text Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent 148.37(b) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.37(c) Form 4455 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.52(c) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.53(b) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent, 148.77(b)(1) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent 148.77(b)(2) Form 3299 , or its electronic equivalent, PART 151—EXAMINATION, SAMPLING, AND TESTING OF MERCHANDISE 59. 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.

60. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 151.11 Form 28 , or its electronic equivalent 151.15(a) Form 3461, or Customs Form 3461 (ALT) , or their electronic equivalents, 151.15(a) Form 3461 or 3461 (ALT) , or their electronic equivalents 151.15(d) Form 3461 or 3461 (ALT) , or their electronic equivalents, PART 152—CLASSIFICATION AND APPRAISEMENT OF MERCHANDISE 61. The general authority citation for Part 152 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1401a, 1500, 1502, 1624,

62. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 152.2 Form 29 , or its electronic equivalent PART 158—RELIEF FROM DUTIES ON MERCHANDISE LOST, DAMAGED, ABANDONED, OR EXPORTED 63. The authority citation for Part 158 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1624, unless otherwise noted. Subpart C is also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1563.

64. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 158.11(b)(1) Form 4315 , or its electronic equivalent, 158.13(a)(1) Form 4315 , or its electronic equivalent 158.13(a)(2) Form 4315 , or its electronic equivalent 158.23 Form 4315 , or its electronic equivalent PART 163—RECORDKEEPING 65. The general authority citation for Part 163 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1508; 1509, 1510, 1624.

66. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: Appendix to Part 163 Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 163 Form (CF) 3461 , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 163 Form 3229 , or its electronic equivalent, Appendix to Part 163 CG-5096 , or its electronic equivalent PART 174—PROTESTS 67. The general authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1514, 1515, 1624.

§ 174.12 [Amended]
68. Amend § 174.12, in paragraph (c) by removing the word “ACS” and adding in its place the words “CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system”.
PART 181—NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 69. The general authority citation for Part 181 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314;

70. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 181.11(b) introductory text Form 434 , or its electronic equivalent 181.22(b)(1) Form 434 , or its electronic equivalent 181.47(b)(2)(i)(B) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(B) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(D) Form 7552 , or its electronic equivalent 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(B) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(2)(iii)(B) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(2)(iii)(C) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(3)(i) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(3)(ii) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(3)(iii) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(4)(i) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(a)(4)(ii) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(b)(2) Example Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(b)(3) Example Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.53(b)(4)(ii) Example Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.72(a)(3)(i) Form 28 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.112(a) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent, 181.114(b)(2) Form 4647 , or its electronic equivalent PART 191—DRAWBACK 71. The general authority citation for Part 191 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1313, 1624;

72. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, after the words indicated in the middle column, wherever they appear in the section, add the words indicated in the right column: 191.2(c) introductory text Form 7552 , or its electronic equivalent 191.2(d) introductory text Form 7552 , or its electronic equivalent 191.91(b)(3) Form 7501 , or its electronic equivalent R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: October 5, 2015. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2015-25729 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P; 9111-15-P; 9111-16-P; 9111-17-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 107 [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0067] Infant Formula: The Addition of Minimum and Maximum Levels of Selenium to Infant Formula and Related Labeling Requirements; Confirmation of Effective Date AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the effective date of June 22, 2016, for the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of June 23, 2015. The final rule amended the regulations on nutrient specifications and labeling for infant formula to add the mineral selenium to the list of required nutrients and to establish minimum and maximum levels of selenium in infant formula.

DATES:

Effective date of final rule published in the Federal Register of June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35834) confirmed: June 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Assar, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-850), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Federal Register of June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35834), we amended the regulations on nutrient specifications and labeling for infant formula to add 2.0 μg selenium per 100 kilocalories (/100 kcal) as the minimum level of selenium in infant formulas and 7.0 μg/100 kcal as the maximum level of selenium in infant formulas.

We gave interested persons until July 23, 2015, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of June 22, 2016, should be confirmed.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 107

Food labeling, Infants and children, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 343, 350a, 371) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the June 23, 2015, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby will become effective June 22, 2016. Dated: October 7, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-25960 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 524, 556, and 558 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor's Address AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during July and August 2015. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect a change of sponsor, a change of sponsor's address, a revised food safety warning, the voluntary withdrawal of approval of an NADA, and a technical amendment. This technical amendment is being made to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

DATES:

This rule is effective October 13, 2015, except for the amendment to 21 CFR 558.460, which is effective October 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during July and August 2015, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book) at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/default.htm.

Table 1—Original and Supplemental NADAs and ANADAs Approved During July and August 2015 NADA/ANADA Sponsor New animal drug product name Action 21 CFR
  • sections
  • FOIA summary NEPA review
    141-438 Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285 KAVAULT (avilamycin) Type A medicated article Original approval for the reduction in incidence and overall severity of diarrhea in the presence of pathogenic Escherichia coli in groups of weaned pigs 556.68
  • 558.4
  • 558.68
  • yes EA/FONSI.1
    141-442 Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 LUTALYSE HighCon (dinoprost tromethamine injection) Injection Original approval of a higher concentration formulation 522.690 yes CE.2 4 141-443 Novartis Animal Health US, Inc., 3200 Northline Ave., Suite 300, Greensboro, NC 27408 ONSIOR (robenacoxib) Injection Original approval for the control of postoperative pain and inflammation associated with orthopedic surgery, ovariohysterectomy, and castration in cats 522.2075 yes CE.2 3 065-252 5 Huvepharma AD, 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haytov Str.,1113 Sophia, Bulgaria STREP-SOL (streptomycin sulfate) Solution 25% Supplemental approval to change marketing status from over-the-counter to by veterinary prescription 520.2158 no CE.2 3 200-553 Akorn Animal Health, Inc., 1925 West Field Ct., Suite 300, Lake Forest, IL 60045 Neomycin and Polymyxin B Sulfates, Bacitracin Zinc Ophthalmic Ointment, USP Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 065-485 524.154 yes CE.2 4 200-565 Putney, Inc., One Monument Sq., Suite 400, Portland, ME 04101 Thiabendazole, Dexamethasone, Neomycin Sulfate Solution Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 042-633 524.1484g yes CE.2 4 200-582 Orkeo USA, Inc., 77 Water St., New York, NY 10005 LONCOR 300 (florfenicol) Injectable Solution Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 141-063 522.955 yes CE.2 4 200-583 Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 ACTOGAIN 45 (ractopamine hydrochloride) plus RUMENSIN (monensin USP) plus TYLOVET 100 (tylosin phosphate) plus MGA (melengestrol acetate) Type C medicated feeds Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 141-233 558.500 yes CE.2 4 200-584 Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 ENGAIN 9 or 45 (ractopamine hydrochloride) plus TYLOVET 100 (tylosin phosphate) Type B and Type C medicated feeds Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 141-172 558.500 yes CE.2 4 200-585 Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 ACTOGAIN 45 (ractopamine hydrochloride) plus RUMENSIN (monensin USP) plus TYLOVET 100 (tylosin phosphate) Type B and Type C medicated feeds Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 141-224 558.500 yes CE.2 4 200-591 Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., Station Works, Newry BT35 6JP, Northern Ireland NORFENICOL (florfenicol) Injectable Solution Original approval as a generic copy of NADA 141-063 522.955 yes CE.2 4 141-216 Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 QUEST PLUS Gel (moxidectin/praziquantel) Supplemental approval for use in breeding, pregnant, and lactating mares 520.1453 6 yes CE.2 3 200-495 Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., Station Works, Newry BT35 6JP, Northern Ireland ENROFLOX 100 (enrofloxacin) Injectable Solution Supplemental approval of single-dose indications in cattle 522.812 yes CE.2 4 200-509 Huvepharma AD, 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haytov Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria TILMOVET 90 (tilmicosin phosphate) Type A medicated article Supplemental approval for use of Type C medicated feeds for control of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in groups of beef and non-lactating dairy cattle 558.618 yes CE.2 4 1 The Agency has carefully considered an environmental assessment (EA) of the potential environmental impact of this action and has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 2 The Agency has determined that this action is categorically excluded (CE) from the requirement to submit an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because it is of a type that does not have a significant effect on the human environment. 3 CE granted under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1). 4 CE granted under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1). 5 This NADA was listed as being affected by GFI #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,” December 2013. 6 This supplemental approval required no change to the regulation.

    In addition, IMPAX Laboratories, Inc., 30831 Huntwood Ave., Hayward, CA 94544 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, ANADA 200-366 for NOVOCOX (carprofen sodium) Caplets to Putney, Inc., One Monument Square, suite 400, Portland, ME 04101.

    File No. Product name 21 CFR
  • section
  • 200-366 NOVOCOX (carprofen sodium) Caplets 520.304

    Also, Pharmgate LLC, 161 North Franklin Turnpike, suite 2C, Ramsey, NJ 07446, has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 1015 Ashes Dr., suite 102, Wilmington, NC 28405. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600 is being amended to reflect this change.

    In addition, FDA is revising a human food safety warning for use of sulfamethazine soluble powder in pre-ruminating calves. FDA is also changing the drug labeler code for a generic dinoprost injection product in 21 CFR 522.690, which in error was omitted from a final rule changing sponsorship of an application (78 FR 17595, March 22, 2013). Also, the strength of lufenuron injectable suspension is also being amended to conform to the approved application. These technical amendments are being made to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

    In addition, Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NADA 046-666 that provides for use of Type A medicated articles containing penicillin G procaine to manufacture medicated feeds administered to poultry and swine. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because this product is no longer manufactured or marketed. Note this NADA was identified as being affected by Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,” December 2013. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice that approval of NADA 046-666, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective October 23, 2015. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect this voluntary withdrawal of approval.

    This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Parts 520, 522, and 524

    Animal drugs.

    21 CFR Part 556

    Animal drugs, Foods.

    21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, 556, and 558 are amended as follows:

    PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

    2. In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), add an entry for “Orkeo USA, Inc.” in alphabetical order and revise the entry for “Pharmgate LLC”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2), revise the entry for “069254” and add in numerical order an entry for “086050” to read as follows:
    § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Firm name and address Drug labeler code *         *         *         *         *         *         * Orkeo USA, Inc., 77 Water St., New York, NY 10005 086050 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Pharmgate LLC, 1015 Ashes Dr., Suite 102, Wilmington, NC 28405 069254 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (2) * * *

    Drug labeler code Firm name and address *         *         *         *         *         *         * 069254 Pharmgate LLC, 1015 Ashes Dr., Suite 102, Wilmington, NC 28405. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 086050 Orkeo USA, Inc., 77 Water St., New York, NY 10005. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    § 520.304 [Amended]
    4. In § 520.304, in paragraph (b)(2), remove “000115” and in numerical sequence add “026637”.
    5. In § 520.2158, revise paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) and add paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
    § 520.2158 Streptomycin.

    (d) * * *

    (1) Calves—(i) Amount. 10 to 15 milligrams per pound (mg/pound) of body weight (1.0 to 1.5 grams per gallon) for up to 5 days.

    (ii) Indications for use. For the treatment of bacterial enteritis caused by Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. susceptible to streptomycin.

    (iii) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    (2) Swine—(i) Amount. 10 to 15 mg/pound of body weight (1.0 to 1.5 grams per gallon) for up to 4 days.

    (ii) Indications for use. For the treatment of bacterial enteritis caused by Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. susceptible to streptomycin.

    (iii) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    (3) Chickens—(i) Amount. 10 to 15 mg/pound of body weight (0.6 to 0.9 grams per gallon) for up to 5 days.

    (ii) Indications for use. For the treatment of nonspecific infectious enteritis caused by organisms susceptible to streptomycin.

    (iii) Limitations. Withdraw 4 days before slaughter. Do not administer to chickens producing eggs for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    6. In § 520.2261b, in paragraph (d)(4)(iii), revise the last two sentences to read as follows:
    § 520.2261b Sulfamethazine powder.

    (d) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (iii) * * * Do not use in calves under one (1) month of age or calves being fed an all-milk diet. Use in these classes of calves may cause violative residues to remain beyond the withdrawal time.

    PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 7. The authority citation for part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    8. Amend § 522.690 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) as paragraphs (d)(2) and (4), respectively, and add new paragraph (d)(1); c. In newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and in paragraph (d)(3)(ii), revise the paragraph heading “Indications”, to read “Indications for use”; and d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (d)(4) introductory text.

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 522.690 Dinoprost.

    (a) Specifications. Each milliliter (mL) of solution contains dinoprost tromethamine equivalent to 5 milligrams (mg) or 12.5 mg dinoprost.

    (b) Sponsors. See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    (1) No. 054771 for use of the 12.5 mg/mL product as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

    (2) Nos. 000859 and 054771 for use of the 5 mg/mL product as in paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4) of this section.

    (c) Special considerations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    (d) * * *

    (1) Cattle. Administer product described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section as follows:

    (i) Amount. 25 mg as a single intramuscular injection.

    (ii) Indications for use. As a luteolytic agent; effective only in those cattle having a corpus luteum, i.e., those which ovulated at least 5 days prior to treatment.

    (A) For estrus synchronization in beef cows, beef heifers and replacement dairy heifers.

    (B) For unobserved (silent) estrus in lactating dairy cows with a corpus luteum.

    (C) For treatment of pyometra (chronic endometritis) in cattle.

    (D) For abortion in beef cows, beef heifers and replacement dairy heifers.

    (E) For use with gonadorelin injection as in § 522.1077 of this chapter to synchronize estrous cycles to allow fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) in lactating dairy cows.

    (F) For use with progesterone intravaginal inserts as in § 529.1940 of this chapter for synchronization of estrus in lactating dairy cows.

    (G) For use with progesterone intravaginal inserts as in § 529.1940 of this chapter for synchronization of estrus in suckled beef cows and replacement beef and dairy heifers, advancement of first postpartum estrus in suckled beef cows, and advancement of first pubertal estrus in beef heifers.

    (4) Cattle. Administer product described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section as follows:

    9. In § 522.812, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 522.812 Enrofloxacin.

    (b) * * *

    (2) No. 055529 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) in this section as in paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)(i)(B), and (e)(3)(ii) of this section.

    10. In § 522.955, revise paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1) subject heading, (d)(1)(i) introductory text, (d)(1)(i)(C), (d)(1)(ii) introductory text, and (d)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows:
    § 522.955 Florfenicol.

    (a) Specifications. Each milliliter of solution contains:

    (1) 300 milligrams (mg) florfenicol in the inactive vehicles 2-pyrrolidone and triacetin.

    (2) 300 mg florfenicol in the inactive vehicles n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, propylene glycol, and polyethylene glycol.

    (3) 300 mg florfenicol in the inactive vehicles 2-pyrrolidone and glycerol formal.

    (b) Sponsors. See sponsor numbers in § 510.600(c) of this chapter:

    (1) No. 000061 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraph (d)(1)(i); and

    (2) Nos. 000061 and 086050 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) as in paragraph (d)(1)(ii).

    (3) No. 055529 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(3) as in paragraph (d)(1)(ii).

    (d) * * *

    (1) Beef and non-lactating dairy cattle—(i) 300 mg per milliliter (mL) florfenicol in the inactive vehicles 2-pyrrolidone and triacetin:

    (C) Limitations. Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 44 days of treatment. Do not use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Use of florfenicol in this class of cattle may cause milk residues. A withdrawal period has not been established in pre-ruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    (ii) 300 mg/mL florfenicol in the inactive vehicles n-methyl-2- pyrrolidone, propylene glycol, and polyethylene glycol, or in 2-pyrrolidone and glycerol formal:

    (C) Limitations. Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 28 days of the last intramuscular treatment. Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 33 days of subcutaneous treatment. This product is not approved for use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows. Use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established in pre-ruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    § 522.1289 [Amended]
    11. In § 522.1289, in paragraph (a),, remove “10 milligrams” and in its place add “100 milligrams”.
    12. Add § 522.2075 to read as follows:
    § 522.2075 Robenacoxib.

    (a) Specifications. Each milliliter of solution contains 20 milligrams (mg) robenacoxib.

    (b) Sponsor. See No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    (c) Conditions of use in cats—(1) Amount. Administer 0.91 mg per pound (2 mg/kilogram) by subcutaneous injection, once daily, for a maximum of 3 days.

    (2) Indications for use. For the control of postoperative pain and inflammation associated with orthopedic surgery, ovariohysterectomy, and castration in cats at least 4 months of age for a maximum of 3 days.

    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 13. The authority citation for part 524 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    14. In § 524.154, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 524.154 Bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B ophthalmic ointment.

    (a) * * *

    (1) 500 units bacitracin, 3.5 milligrams (mg) neomycin sulfate (equivalent to 3.5 mg neomycin base), and 10,000 units polymyxin B sulfate; or

    (2) 400 units bacitracin zinc, 5 mg neomycin sulfate (equivalent to 3.5 mg neomycin base), and 10,000 units polymyxin B sulfate.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Nos. 000061, 043264, and 059399 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) as in paragraph (c) of this section.

    15. In § 524.1484g, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 524.1484g Neomycin, thiabendazole, and dexamethasone solution.

    (a) Specifications. Each milliliter of solution contains 40 milligrams (mg) thiabendazole, 3.2 mg neomycin (from neomycin sulfate), and 1 mg dexamethasone.

    (b) Sponsors. See Nos. 026637 and 050604 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    PART 556—TOLERANCES FOR RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS IN FOOD 16. The authority citation for part 556 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.

    17. Add § 556.68 to read as follows:
    § 556.68 Avilamycin.

    (a) Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). The ADI for total residues of avilamycin is 1.1 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day.

    (b) Tolerances. A tolerance for avilamycin is not required.

    (c) Related conditions of use. See § 558.68 of this chapter.

    PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 18. The authority citation for part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.

    19. In § 558.4, in paragraph (d), in the “Category I” table, add an entry in alphabetical order for “Avilamycin” to read as follows:
    § 558.4 Requirement of a medicated feed mill license.

    (d) * * *

    Category I Drug Assay limits percent 1
  • Type A
  • Type B maximum (200x) Assay limits percent
  • Type B/C
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Avilamycin 90-110 3.65 g/lb (0.8%) 80-110 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    20. Add § 558.68 to read as follows:
    § 558.68 Avilamycin.

    (a) Specifications. Each pound of Type A medicated article contains 90.7 grams of avilamycin.

    (b) Sponsor. See No. 000986 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    (c) Special considerations—(1) Federal law restricts avilamycin medicated feeds to use under a veterinary feed directive (VFD) and the professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian. See § 558.6 of this chapter for additional requirements.

    (2) The expiration date of VFDs for avilamycin medicated feeds must not exceed 90 days from the date of issuance. VFDs for avilamycin shall not be refilled.

    (d) Related tolerances. See § 556.68 of this chapter.

    (e) Conditions of use in swine—(1) Amount. Feed at 73 grams avilamycin per ton of Type C medicated feed (80 ppm) as the sole ration for 21 consecutive days. The veterinarian may direct feeding for up to a total of 42 consecutive days, based on the clinical assessment.

    (2) Indications for use. Weaned pigs less than 14 weeks of age: For the reduction in incidence and overall severity of diarrhea in the presence of pathogenic Escherichia coli in groups of weaned pigs.

    (3) Limitations. Feed continuously as the sole ration.

    § 558.460 [Amended]
    21. In § 558.460, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 558.460 Penicillin.

    (a) Specifications. Type A medicated articles containing 100 or 227 grams penicillin procaine G or feed grade penicillin procaine per pound.

    (b) Sponsor: See No. 066104 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    § 558.500 [Amended]
    22. Amend § 558.500 as follows: a. In paragraphs (e)(1)(ii), (iii), and (iv), in the “Limitations” column, remove the last sentence and in its place add “Ractopamine as provided by Nos. 000986 or 054771; tylosin as provided by Nos. 000986 or 016592 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.”. b. In paragraphs (e)(2)(iv), (ix), and (xiii), in the “Limitations” column, remove the last sentence and in its place add “Ractopamine as provided by Nos. 000986 or 054771 with monensin as provided by No. 000986, and tylosin as provided by Nos. 000986 or 016592 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.”. c. In paragraph (e)(2)(x), in the “Limitations” column, to the last sentence add “; or ractopamine as provided by No. 054771 with monensin as provided by No. 000986, tylosin provided by No. 016592, and melengestrol acetate provided by No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.”
    § 558.618 [Amended]
    23. In § 558.618, in paragraph (e)(2)(i), in the “Sponsor” column, add “016592” after “000986”.
    Dated: October 6, 2015. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25918 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0002] New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Penicillin G Procaine AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of a new animal drug application (NADA) providing for the use of penicillin G procaine in medicated feed of poultry and swine. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because this product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

    DATES:

    Withdrawal of approval is effective October 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761, [email protected]v.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NADA 046-666 that provides for use of Type A medicated articles containing penicillin G procaine to manufacture medicated feeds administered to poultry and swine. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because this product is no longer manufactured or marketed. Note this NADA was identified as being affected by guidance for industry #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,” December 2013.

    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with 21 CFR 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application, notice is given that approval of NADA 046-666, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective October 23, 2015.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of this application.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25919 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 890 [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0378] Physical Medicine Devices; Reclassification of Shortwave Diathermy for All Other Uses, Henceforth To Be Known as Nonthermal Shortwave Therapy AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order; technical correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final order to reclassify shortwave diathermy (SWD) for all other uses, a preamendments class III device, into class II (special controls), and to rename the device “nonthermal shortwave therapy” (SWT). FDA is also making a technical correction in the regulation for the carrier frequency for SWD and SWT devices.

    DATES:

    This order is effective on October 13, 2015. See further discussion in Section IV, “Implementation Strategy.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Ryan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1615, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6283, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background—Regulatory Authorities

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 108-214), the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), among other amendments, established a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).

    Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act, devices that were in commercial distribution before the enactment of the 1976 amendments, May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as preamendments devices), are classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) published the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) published a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.

    Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as “postamendments devices”), are automatically classified by section 513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.

    A preamendments device that has been classified into class III and devices found substantially equivalent by means of premarket notification (510(k)) procedures to such a preamendments device or to a device within that type (both the preamendments and substantially equivalent devices are referred to as preamendments class III devices) may be marketed without submission of a premarket approval application (PMA) until FDA issues a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval.

    On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted. Section 608(a) of FDASIA amended section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, changing the mechanism for reclassifying a device from rulemaking to an administrative order.

    Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may, by administrative order, reclassify a device based upon “new information.” FDA can initiate a reclassification under section 513(e) or an interested person may petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e), includes information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the data before the Agency when the device was originally classified, as well as information not presented, not available, or not developed at that time. (See, e.g., Holland-Rantos Co. v. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970); Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966).)

    Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available authority (see Bell, 366 F.2d at 181; Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F.Supp. 382, 388-391 (D.D.C. 1991); or, in light of changes in “medical science,” Upjohn, 422 F.2d at 951). Whether data before the Agency are old or new data, the “new information” to support reclassification under section 513(e) must be “valid scientific evidence” as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., Gen. Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Mfrs. Ass'n v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986).)

    FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA. (See section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).)

    Section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for issuing a final reclassification order. Specifically, prior to the issuance of a final order reclassifying a device, the following must occur: (1) Publication of a proposed order in the Federal Register; (2) a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act; and (3) consideration of comments to a public docket. FDA published a proposed order to reclassify this device in the Federal Register of February 20, 2014 (79 FR 9671). FDA has held a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act to discuss shortwave diathermy for all other uses, and therefore, has met this requirement under section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act. As explained further in section II of the proposed order, a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act took place on May 21, 2013. FDA received and has considered several comments on this proposed order, as discussed in Section II.

    II. Public Comments in Response to the Proposed Order

    In response to the February 20, 2014, proposed order to reclassify shortwave diathermy for all other uses and to rename the device “nonthermal shortwave therapy,” FDA received 40 comments from industry, a patient advocacy group, and consumers of SWT devices. Of those, 35 comments were received from users of specific devices who support the use and availability of those devices in the United States. Several of these comments also supported reclassification into class II. This final order reclassifies into class II SWT devices intended for adjunctive use in the palliative treatment of postoperative pain and edema of soft tissue by means other than the generation of deep heat within body tissues and establishes special controls that are intended to mitigate risks to health of SWT devices in order to provide a reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. These special controls are meant to protect patients from unsafe or ineffective SWT devices.

    Six of the comments from users also requested that the prescription use restriction be removed from the proposed regulation so that SWT devices could be available over-the-counter (OTC). This final order applies only to SWT devices for the indications and uses that have been previously cleared for marketing. To date, FDA has not cleared an SWT device for OTC use and, as a result, has limited the reclassification in this final order to prescription use devices. However, if FDA receives a marketing application in the future for an SWT device indicated for OTC use, FDA would make its classification decision regarding such use at that time.

    One public comment FDA received requested that SWT devices remain classified in class III, and that FDA call for PMAs. FDA disagrees that SWT devices should remain in class III and require PMA approval. On May 21, 2013, FDA held a meeting of the Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel (the 2013 Panel), to discuss the classification of SWT devices (Ref. 1). The 2013 Panel reached consensus that SWT devices did not fit the statutory definition of a class III device. Section 513(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act provides that a device is class III if (a) the device is life supporting or life sustaining, of substantial importance in preventing impairment to human health, or presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury, and (b) the device cannot be classified in class I or II because insufficient information exists to determine that general controls or general and special controls would provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. The 2013 Panel agreed that SWT devices are not life supporting or life sustaining, or of substantial importance to preventing impairment to human health. The 2013 Panel was concerned about the potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury resulting from the use of SWT devices in certain instances, such as treatments around the eye. Moreover, the 2013 Panel concluded that the information presented to the panel was sufficient to establish special controls that are necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of SWT. Thus, the consensus of the 2013 Panel was to recommend that SWT be reclassified into class II (special controls).

    FDA agrees with the 2013 Panel's recommendation for reclassification. The Agency believes, as stated in the proposed order, that the risks of SWT devices are sufficiently understood based on valid scientific evidence, and a review of the clinical literature indicates that few relevant adverse events have been reported for these devices. FDA further believes that the risks of SWT devices with the special controls identified in this final order will be nominal.

    One of the public comments, received from industry, requested removal of the special control requiring clinical data, stating that it was unnecessary and there was already sufficient evidence of effectiveness. This comment did not cite new data, but requested that FDA reconsider the data that was previously presented to the 2013 Panel. The available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of SWT was presented to the 2013 Panel by both FDA and industry, and there was panel consensus that the existing data was very limited and that clinical data should be required as a special control. When asked to consider the benefits of SWT based on the information presented to it by FDA and industry, the 2013 Panel consensus was that there may be a certain subset of patients who may benefit from SWT; however, the 2013 Panel had “very serious concerns involving both the veracity and the scientific methodology of the data presented.” Thus, although the limited data reviewed by the Agency and by the 2013 Panel suggest that SWT could potentially be effective, particularly for management of postoperative pain, the 2013 Panel members indicated a need for clinical data demonstrating effectiveness from statistically powered, well-controlled studies with quantified outcomes. The 2013 Panel agreed with FDA that clinical studies should consider the following attributes: Randomization, utilization of sham controls, blinding, well-defined cohorts, well-defined treatment parameters, clinically relevant and validated measures, adequate power, appropriate and defined methods of statistics, predefined hypotheses, and systematic collection of adverse events. The 2013 Panel believed that clinical studies incorporating these basic design elements should be feasible to conduct, and are important in demonstrating an appropriate level of effectiveness for specific devices. FDA agrees with the 2013 Panel's assessment and has determined that the special controls identified in this final order, including clinical performance data, are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of SWT.

    Two comments from sponsors of currently marketed SWT devices supported reclassification, but requested 2 years from the effective date of the final order to submit a 510(k), rather than the 60 days FDA proposed in the proposed order. The comments suggested that if clinical data are necessary, it will be difficult to plan and conduct a clinical trial and submit the data within 60 days of the effective date of the final order. One comment suggested that it will be beneficial to interact with the Agency prior to a clinical trial and submission of the data to FDA, and that 60 days may not be adequate to accomplish such. FDA would like to encourage interaction with the Agency prior to a clinical study and submission of the data to FDA, and therefore grants these requests to provide more time for currently legally marketed SWT devices to comply with the special controls identified in this order. The special controls will be effective on the date of publication of this final order. However, FDA does not intend to enforce compliance with the special controls with respect to currently legally marketed SWT devices until 1 year after the date of publication of this final order. Please see Section IV, “Implementation Strategy.” The Agency also notes that when indicated for adjunctive use in the palliative treatment of postoperative pain and edema, SWT devices may not be considered significant risk devices, per 21 CFR 812.3(m), and therefore clinical studies conducted in the United States involving SWT devices with those indications for use may not require an application for Investigational Device Exemption (U.S. studies involving such devices would, however, require approval by an institutional review board; see 21 CFR 812.2(b)(1)). Alternatively, SWT devices with indications for use different from adjunctive use in the palliative treatment of postoperative pain and edema of soft tissue, or that specify the types of postoperative pain or edema, may be considered significant risk devices. We encourage interaction with FDA through the presubmission process to address any questions regarding whether such a device is significant risk.

    One industry comment challenged FDA's authority to require new 510(k)s for SWT devices that have already been legally marketed to demonstrate that the SWT devices meet the special controls. FDA has considered this comment, and will not require manufacturers of currently legally marketed SWT devices to submit a new 510(k) notification. However, manufacturers must comply with the special controls implemented by this order; if the special controls are not met then the device may be considered adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(f)(1)(B). In order to ensure compliance with these special controls, FDA is requiring that manufacturers of currently marketed SWT devices submit an amendment to their previously cleared 510(k) demonstrating compliance with the special controls. Such amendment will be added to the 510(k) file but will not serve as a basis for a new substantial equivalence review. An amendment to a 510(k) in this context will be used solely to submit information demonstrating to FDA that an SWT device is in compliance with the special controls.

    As discussed above, the special controls will be effective on the date of publication of this final order. However, FDA does not intend to enforce compliance with the special controls with respect to currently legally marketed SWT devices until 1 year after the date of publication. Please see Section IV, “Implementation Strategy.” If an amendment to a 510(k) that demonstrates compliance with the special controls for the device is not submitted as required in Section IV or if FDA determines after review of the amendment that the device is not in compliance with the special controls, the device may be considered adulterated and sale of the device would have to cease.

    In reviewing the proposed order, the comments received, and the 2013 Panel's recommendations, FDA is also making a few modifications to the identification and special controls for SWT devices. The identification has been revised from “intended for the treatment of medical conditions except for the treatment of malignancies” to “intended for adjunctive use in the palliative treatment of postoperative pain and edema of soft tissue,” as the latter statement more closely captures the current intended uses of existing SWT devices. The special control that specifies saline gel test loads has been revised to allow for testing in saline gel test load or other appropriate models to allow for flexible characterization approaches. The special control “Documented clinical performance testing must demonstrate safe and effective use of the device” has been revised to “A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to use of the device to demonstrate the effectiveness of the device in its intended use.” This revision clarifies the information that FDA would expect to see under this special control. Finally, labeling for SWT devices must include output characteristics of the device and recommended treatment regimes, including duration of use, in addition to a detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to the use of the device and a summary of the adverse events and complications. This revision clarifies the type of information that FDA would expect to see in labeling for SWT devices. FDA believes these revisions provide additional clarification and flexibility for SWT device manufacturers.

    III. The Final Order

    Under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, FDA is adopting its findings as published in the preamble to the proposed order with the modifications discussed in Section II of this final order. FDA is issuing this final order to reclassify shortwave diathermy (SWD) for adjunctive use in the palliative treatment of postoperative pain and edema in superficial soft tissue by means other than the generation of deep heat within body tissues from class III to class II, rename the device “nonthermal shortwave therapy” (SWT), and establish special controls by revising part 890 (21 CFR part 890). As described in the proposed order, FDA is also making a technical correction in the regulation for the carrier frequency for SWD and SWT devices from “13 megahertz (MHz) to 27.12 MHz” to “13.56 MHz or 27.12 MHz.” The identification for § 890.5290 has been revised to provide the name change of the device under paragraph (b) and a more accurate description of the devices in this classification section. SWT devices must comply with the special controls identified in this order (see Section IV, “Implementation Strategy”).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of SWT and, therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements.

    Following the effective date of this final order, firms marketing SWT devices must comply with the special controls set forth in this order (see Section IV, “Implementation Strategy”).

    IV. Implementation Strategy

    The special controls identified in this final order are effective October 13, 2015. For models of SWT devices that have not been legally marketed prior to October 13, 2015, or models that have been legally marketed but are required to submit a new 510(k) under § 807.81(a)(3) because the device is about to be significantly changed or modified, manufacturers must obtain 510(k) clearance, among other relevant requirements, and demonstrate compliance with the special controls included in this final order, before marketing the new or changed device.

    FDA does not intend to enforce compliance with the special controls for currently legally marketed SWT devices until October 13, 2016. For those manufacturers who wish to continue to offer currently legally marketed devices for sale, FDA expects them to submit a 510(k) amendment for those devices by October 13, 2016 demonstrating compliance with the special controls included in this final order. If a 510(k) amendment is not submitted by this date for the device or if FDA determines that the amendment does not demonstrate compliance with the special controls, the device may be considered adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act as of the date of FDA's determination of noncompliance or October 13, 2016, whichever is sooner, and sale of the device would have to cease.

    V. Environmental Impact, No Significant Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart B, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    VII. Codification of Orders

    Prior to the amendments by FDASIA, section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provided for FDA to issue regulations to reclassify devices. Although section 513(e) of the FD&C Act as amended requires FDA to issue final orders rather than regulations, FDASIA also provides for FDA to revoke previously issued regulations by order. FDA will continue to codify classifications and reclassifications in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Changes resulting from final orders will appear in the CFR as changes to codified classification determinations or as newly codified orders. Therefore, under section 513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, in this final order we are revoking the requirements in § 890.5290(b) related to the classification of SWT as class III devices and codifying the reclassification of SWT into class II (special controls).

    VIII. Reference

    FDA has placed the following reference on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Interested persons may see it between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and online at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. FDA's Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel transcript and other meeting materials are available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/OrthopaedicandRehabilitationDevicesPanel/ucm352525.htm.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 890

    Medical devices, Physical medicine devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 890 is amended as follows:

    PART 890—PHYSICAL MEDICINE DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 890 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

    2. Section 890.5290 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) and removing paragraph (c).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 890.5290 Shortwave diathermy.

    (a) Shortwave diathermy for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions—(1) Identification. A shortwave diathermy for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions is a device that applies to specific areas of the body electromagnetic energy in the radiofrequency (RF) bands of 13.56 megahertz (MHz) or 27.12 MHz and that is intended to generate deep heat within body tissues for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as relief of pain, muscle spasms, and joint contractures, but not for the treatment of malignancies.

    (b) Nonthermal shortwave therapy—(1) Identification. A nonthermal shortwave therapy is a prescription device that applies to the body pulsed electromagnetic energy in the RF bands of 13.56 MHz or 27.12 MHz and that is intended for adjunctive use in the palliative treatment of postoperative pain and edema of soft tissue by means other than the generation of deep heat within body tissues as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Classification: Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II. The special controls for this device are:

    (i) Components of the device that come into human contact must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (ii) Appropriate analysis/testing must demonstrate that the device is electrically safe and electromagnetically compatible in its intended use environment.

    (iii) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Non-clinical performance testing must characterize the output waveform of the device and demonstrate that the device meets appropriate output performance specifications. The output characteristics and the methods used to determine these characteristics, including the following, must be determined:

    (A) Peak output power;

    (B) Pulse width;

    (C) Pulse frequency;

    (D) Duty cycle;

    (E) Characteristics of other types of modulation that may be used;

    (F) Average measured output powered into the RF antenna/applicator;

    (G) Specific absorption rates in saline gel test load or other appropriate model;

    (H) Characterization of the electrical and magnetic fields in saline gel test load or other appropriate model for each RF antenna and prescribed RF antenna orientation/position; and

    (I) Characterization of the deposited energy density in saline gel test load or other appropriate model.

    (iv) A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to use of the device to demonstrate the effectiveness of the device in its intended use.

    (v) Labeling must include the following:

    (A) Output characteristics of the device;

    (B) Recommended treatment regimes, including duration of use; and

    (C) A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to the use of the device and a summary of the adverse events and complications.

    (vi) Nonthermal shortwave therapy devices marketed prior to the effective date of this reclassification must submit an amendment to their previously cleared premarket notification (510(k)) demonstrating compliance with these special controls.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25923 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 625 [Docket No. FHWA-2015-0003] RIN 2125-AF67 Design Standards for Highways AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule updates the regulations governing the required design standards to be utilized on Federal-aid highway program (FAHP) projects. In issuing the final rule, FHWA incorporates by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference, and removes the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. This rule also makes technical changes to the regulatory text consistent with updated Federal Register procedures.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective November 12, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael Matzke, Office of Program Administration (HIPA-20), (202) 366-4658, or via email at [email protected], or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-1373, or via email at [email protected] Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing

    This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/, or the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys.

    Background

    This rulemaking updates existing regulations governing new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS), including the Interstate System, by incorporating by reference the current versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR 625.4, and removing the outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. Several of these design standards and standard specifications were established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Welding Society (AWS) and were previously adopted by FHWA through rulemaking. The updated standards or specifications replace previous versions of these documents and represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted. The FHWA formally adopts them for NHS projects.

    The revisions include referencing the 2011 edition of the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, commonly referred to as the Green Book. The revisions also include referencing the current version of AASHTO's Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications; LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications; and Standard Specifications for Structural Supports of Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. In addition, the revisions reference the current version of the AWS Bridge Welding Code and the Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel.

    The AASHTO is an organization that represents 52 State transportation agencies (STA) (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). Its members consist of the duly constituted heads and other chief officials of those agencies. The Secretary of Transportation is an ex-officio member, and DOT staff participates in various AASHTO activities as nonvoting representatives. Among other functions, AASHTO develops and issues standards, specifications, policies, guides, and related materials for use by the States for highway projects. Many of the standards, policies, and standard specifications that were approved by FHWA and incorporated into 23 CFR part 625 were developed and issued by AASHTO.

    The revisions also include updated versions of welding codes published by AWS. The AWS is a nonprofit organization known for its code and certification procedures, providing industry standards for welding, including in the transportation field. The AWS reports about 66,000 members worldwide and develops updated materials for welding professionals and other interested parties, including those related to bridge welding and structural welding.

    While these adopted standards and specifications apply to all projects on the NHS (including the Interstate System), FHWA encourages the use of flexibility and a context-sensitive approach to consider a full range of project and user needs and the impacts to the community and natural and human environment. The STA and local agencies may consider using design exceptions to achieve a design that balances project and user needs, performance, cost, environmental implications, and community values. These adopted design standards provide a range of acceptable values for highway features, and FHWA encourages the use of this flexibility to achieve a design that best suits the desires of the community while satisfying the purpose for the project and needs of its users.

    At a minimum, STAs and local agencies should select design values based on an evaluation of the context of the facility, needs of all the various project users, safety, mobility, human and natural environmental impacts, and project costs. For most situations, there is sufficient flexibility within the range of acceptable values to achieve a balanced design. However, when this is not possible, STAs and local agencies may consider designs that deviate from the design standards when warranted based on the project's impact on the environment (natural and built), historical and recreational facilities, and other factors. In instances where design standards for a particular element cannot be attained, a design exception, subject to approval by FHWA, or on behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement, is required for projects on the NHS. Additional information on FHWA's adopted design standards and design exceptions is available electronically at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards and in FHWA's publication titled Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/fhwa_sa_07011.pdf.

    In addition, FHWA supports using design guides that national organizations develop from peer-reviewed research, or equivalent guides developed in cooperation with State or local officials, when such guides are not in conflict with Federal laws and regulations.

    The rule also makes technical changes to the regulatory text consistent with updated Federal Register procedures, including updating mailing addresses and including telephone and Web site addresses in 23 CFR 625.4(d) pertaining to the availability of documents incorporated by reference.

    Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The documents FHWA is incorporating by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, primarily STAs and local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. These documents represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted and are currently in use by the transportation industry. The documents are also available for review at the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Transportation Library, the National Archives and Records Administration, or may be obtained from AASHTO or AWS.

    The documents incorporated by reference in this final rule are:

    (1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition, AASHTO 2011. The AASHTO, 2011 edition incorporates the latest research and current industry practices, with the basic criteria identified for geometric design standards remaining essentially the same. This Policy is a comprehensive manual to assist STAs and local agencies in administrative, planning, and educational efforts pertaining to design formulation. The Policy includes design guidelines for freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads in both urban and rural locations.

    (2) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, AASHTO, January 2005. This Policy complements A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Topics include design traffic, right-of-way, geometric controls and criteria, cross section elements, interchanges, and bridges and other structures.

    (3) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, AASHTO, 2002. This document details the design standards for the maintenance and rehabilitation of older, existing structures. For new bridge designs, it is superseded by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (see related item).

    (4) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, AASHTO 2010, with 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Interim Revisions. This new edition has been revised to be consistent with its companion, the recently updated AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (see related item). Among the revisions are improved testing and acceptance criteria, updated material references, and recommended guidelines for construction loads.

    (5) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, AASHTO, 2014, with 2015 Interim Revisions. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are intended for use in the design, evaluation, and rehabilitation of bridges, and are mandated by the FHWA for use on all bridges using Federal funding. These Specifications employ the LRFD methodology using factors developing from current statistical knowledge of loads and structural performance.

    (6) AASHTO LRFD Moveable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, AASHTO, 2007, including 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions. This guide includes information on design of bridge spans, mechanical systems (motors, hydraulics, etc.), electrical systems, and bridge protection systems. The guidelines also cover seismic analysis and vessel impact analysis. Several types of movable bridges as discussed, including Bascule span, Swing span, and Vertical Lift bridges.

    (7) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2010 Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition, AASHTO, 2010, with 2011 and 2012 Interim Revisions. This document covers AASHTO welding requirements for welded highway bridges made from carbon and low-alloy construction steels. Chapters cover design of welded connections, workmanship, technique, procedure and performance qualification, inspection, and stud welding. This document features the latest AASHTO revisions and nondestructive examination requirements, as well as a section providing a “Fracture Control Plan for Nonredundant Bridge Members.”

    (8) Standards for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO, 2013. These Standards are applicable to the structural design of supports for highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals. The Standards are intended to serve as a standard and guide for the design, fabrication, and erection of these types of supports.

    (9) D1.4/D1.4M: 2011 Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel, 7th Edition, American Welding Society, 2011. This manual covers welding of reinforcing steel in most reinforced concrete applications. It includes sections on allowable stresses, structural details, workmanship requirements, technique, procedure and performance qualification, and inspection.

    Summary Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the NPRM

    On June 2, 2015, FHWA published an NPRM in the Federal Register at 80 FR 31327 soliciting public comments on its proposal to update the existing regulations. The following presents an overview of the comments received to the NPRM. The docket contained comments from 11 different parties including 3 STAs, 4 industry organizations, and 4 individuals. The FHWA appreciates the feedback the commenters provided, carefully reviewed and analyzed all the comments that were submitted, and made revisions to the NPRM to incorporate suggestions where necessary.

    Summary of STA Comments

    The Pennsylvania DOT was concerned that the NPRM lacked implementation timeframes for the updated standards. As an example, they stated that STAs will need to update standard designs for structural support for overhead signs and traffic signals and estimated that it may take 3 years to accomplish this. Pennsylvania DOT went on to suggest implementation timeframes of 1-2 years for standards 23 CFR 625.4(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); and 3-4 years for standard 23 CFR 625.4(b)(7).

    The FHWA believes that the standards and manuals incorporated by reference under this rulemaking, where not in conflict with standards and manuals under the previous regulation, have been used by STAs for projects on the NHS. This final rule is effective for all NHS projects authorized to proceed with design activities on or after the effective date of this rule. While FHWA will not establish any extended implementation timeframes within the regulation, STAs should work closely with their FHWA division office in implementing the final rule.

    Both Oklahoma DOT and California DOT expressed support for the update of the standards, specifications, and text.

    The Oklahoma DOT and California DOT support was noted. No change was made to the regulation.

    Individual's Comments

    An individual commenter advised that the address shown in the NPRM 23 CFR 625.4(d)(2) was incorrect and should be: American Welding Society, 8869 NW 36 Street, #130, Miami, FL 33166-6672.

    The FHWA agrees and the final rule was revised accordingly.

    The individual also noted that in July 2015, the AASHTO Standard in 23 CFR 625.4(c)(2) (Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, parts I and II, AASHTO 1995), was superseded by the latest edition of the manual (Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 35th Edition and AASHTO Provisional Standards, 2015 Edition). Furthermore, the Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO 2013 was superseded by LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 1st Edition, AASHTO 2015 in August of 2015.

    The timing of the updates for the AASHTO materials and structural support publications did not allow for FHWA to propose the adoption of them in the NPRM. The FHWA will consider adopting these two manuals in a future update to the regulations. No change was made to the final rule.

    The individual also recommend several other documents for incorporation by reference including a specification for bridge and parking garage deck overlays and several roadway lighting guides and specifications. Generally, the guides and specifications suggested by the commenter refer to specific roadway materials and appurtenances and are left up to STAs to reference as necessary for projects. No changes were made to the final rule to adopt the additional documents suggested by the commenter.

    Another individual commenter suggested that the time period for adopting newer versions of the Green Book can be shortened or eliminated by not including specific edition information in the regulation, and that by doing so, FHWA could avoid a formal rulemaking process and adopt newer editions of the Green Book by only issuing a memo or policy paper.

    Procedures and requirements for incorporation by reference are covered in 1 CFR part 51. This regulation requires that the language incorporating a publication by reference be precise and complete and must clearly state the title, date, edition, author, publisher and identification number of the publication. Therefore, no change was made to the final rule.

    An individual expressed support for the update as long as it eliminates outdated options for road and road-related infrastructure. A review of the list of outdated options provided by the commenter showed that they mainly related to signing and striping issues and therefore fall under the purview of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or are based on specific design decisions that are made on a project-by-project basis by STAs and local agencies. No change was made to the final rule.

    An individual commented that the regulation needs to contain timeline limits for highway projects and that it must require that more time is spent on drainage design since rework after completion of construction can be costly. In addition, the individual suggested that all cloverleaf on and off ramps be replaced to provide for smoother operations on the highway system.

    Establishing design and construction schedules and timelines for highway projects is left to STAs and/or local agencies and will depend on many factors such as project complexity, engineering and environmental issues, and agency staffing and resources, to name a few. Similarly, as the owners of the highway system, STAs and/or local agencies are responsible for setting highway improvement priorities according to local needs. As such, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking to set or otherwise require timelines for design and construction of projects. The standards adopted by this regulation address the need for proper drainage design and interchange geometrics, including cloverleaf on and off ramps. No change was made to the final rule.

    Industry Organization Comments

    The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Smart Growth America, and People For Bikes all recommended amending 23 CFR 625 to include the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 1 and an ITE Recommended Practice/Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context-Sensitive Approach 2 as design guidance or as standards for urban streets. The NACTO points out that 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(2) requires the Secretary to consider the publication entitled Flexibility in Highway Design and the context-sensitive design approach in the development of design criteria. The NACTO also points out that many city-owned arterial streets were added to the NHS under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141), known as MAP-21, and that a context-sensitive design approach is critical to achieving a balanced design on these roadways. The Smart Growth America and People For Bikes additionally urge FHWA to include; the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide,3 and the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.4

    1http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/.

    2http://www.ite.org/css/online/.

    3http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/.

    4http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page00.cfm.

    Part 625, Design Standards for Highways, contains a listing of documents that define specific criteria and controls for the design of NHS projects. Such documents are referred to as standards. The FHWA and other organizations produce many other documents that serve to complement the design standards. These documents are often referred to as guides, references, or best practices. Non-regulatory information, such as guides and references that serve to complement or supplement design standards need not be included within the Code of Federal Regulations. Instead, FHWA typically recognizes guidance through policy memoranda or development of separate FHWA publications.

    As an example, on August 20, 2013, FHWA issued a memorandum 5 expressing its support for taking a flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design. The memorandum listed several good resources that can be referenced to develop non-motorized transportation networks, particularly in urban areas. The memorandum references the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares guide. Subsequent to the date of the memorandum, NACTO published the Urban Street Design Guide. The FHWA expressed support for using the new guide in Frequently Asked Questions available on the internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/design_flexibility_qa.cfm.

    5http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/design_flexibility.cfm.

    While adopted standards and specifications apply to all projects on the NHS, the AASHTO Green Book encourages the use of flexibility and a context-sensitive approach to consider the full range of project and user needs and the impacts to the community and natural and human environment. The 2011 edition, adopted under this rulemaking, strengthens such language and incorporates many of the principles contained in the materials referenced in 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(2). For most situations, there is sufficient flexibility within the range of acceptable values contained in the standards to achieve a balanced design for a variety of roadway classification types. However, when this is not possible, a design exception may be appropriate.

    The FHWA does not intend to adopt the guides as standards for the NHS but will continue to recommend the use of a wide array of design resources to achieve context-sensitive urban street designs. Instead, language has been added to the rule to recognize that FHWA supports the use of guides that national organizations develop from peer-reviewed research, or equivalent guides developed in cooperation with State or local officials, when such guides are not in conflict with other Federal laws or regulations.

    In addition, FHWA will consider including a similar statement about FHWA support of other guides that serve as supplements to the regulatory standards in future updates to 23 CFR part 652.

    The Public Resource.org asserted that the documents to be incorporated by reference into the rule are not reasonably available to the public.

    As stated earlier, when proposing to incorporate a document by reference in the regulations, FHWA follows the policies and procedures under 1 CFR part 51 to ensure that the materials proposed to be incorporated are reasonably available to interested parties and usable by the class of persons affected. The NPRM describes where the materials can be obtained by members of the public, including in-person at the Department of Transportation headquarters office. The materials have been formally adopted by professional organizations and have been in use by the community for some time. The FHWA believes these documents to be in use by the STAs and local agencies affected by this rulemaking and thus are reasonably available.

    Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA determined that this action does not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. The amendments update several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. This rule makes technical changes to the regulatory text consistent with updated Federal Register procedures.

    In addition, this action complies with the principles of Executive Order 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of these amendments, FHWA determined that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. These updated standards and specifications represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted, and are currently in use by the transportation industry. The FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities, such as local governments and businesses. The FHWA determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments would update several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625. The FHWA believes the projected impact upon small entities that utilize Federal-aid highway program funding for the development of highway improvement projects on the NHS would be negligible. Therefore, FHWA certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). Furthermore, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, FHWA evaluated this rule to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In addition, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    This rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it was determined that this rule does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this rule directly preempts any State law or regulation or affects the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. This Executive Order applies because State and local governments would be directly affected by the proposed regulation, which is a condition on Federal highway funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rule does not contain a collection of information requirement for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the human and natural environment because it only makes technical changes and incorporates by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and removes the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. The rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion to NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that this action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal law. This rule establishes the requirements for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related services using FAHP funding and directly related to a construction project. As such, this rule would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments nor would it have any economic or other impacts on the viability of Indian tribes. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We determined that this action would not be a significant energy action under that order because any action contemplated would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, FHWA certifies that a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA analyzed this rule and determined that this action would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action 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.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, and certifies that this proposed action would not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    The Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 625

    Design standards, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference.

    Issued on: October 6, 2015. Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA amends 23 CFR part 625 as follows:

    PART 625—DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HIGHWAYS 1. The authority citation for part 625 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 109, 215, and 402; Sec. 1073 of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; 49 CFR 1.48(b) and (n).

    2. Amend § 625.4 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications.

    (a) Roadway and appurtenances. (1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2011 (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (2) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, AASHTO, January 2005 (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (3) The geometric design standards for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways other than freeways shall be the procedures and the design or design criteria established for individual projects, groups of projects, or all non-freeway RRR projects in a State, and as approved by the FHWA. The other geometric design standards in this section do not apply to RRR projects on NHS highways other than freeways, except as adopted on an individual State basis. The RRR design standards shall reflect the consideration of the traffic, safety, economic, physical, community, and environmental needs of the projects.

    (4) Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains, refer to 23 CFR part 650, subpart A.

    (5) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, refer to 23 CFR part 772.

    (6) Accommodation of Utilities, refer to 23 CFR part 645, subpart B.

    (7) Pavement Design, refer to 23 CFR part 626.

    (b) Bridges and structures. (1) For existing bridges originally designed to any edition of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, modifications may be designed to the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, AASHTO, 2002 (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)), or to the standards and specifications that are listed in § 625.4(b).

    (2) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, AASHTO, 2010, with 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Interim Revisions (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (3) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, AASHTO, 2014, with 2015 Interim Revisions (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (4) AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, AASHTO, 2007, including 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (5) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2010 Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition, AASHTO, 2011, with 2011 and 2012 Interim Revisions (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (6) D1.4/D1.4M: 2011Structural Welding Code-Reinforcing Steel, American Welding Society, 2011 (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (7) Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO, 2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 625.4(d)).

    (8) Navigational Clearances for Bridges, refer to 23 CFR part 650, subpart H.

    (d) Documents incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The documents listed in this paragraph are incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Transportation Library at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (800) 853-1351. The documents also are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Copies of these documents may be obtained from the following organizations:

    (1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Suite 249, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001; www.transportation.org; or (202) 624-5800.

    (i) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition, 2011.

    (ii) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, January 2005.

    (iii) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 2002

    (iv) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, 2010; with:

    (A) Interim Revisions, 2010,

    (B) Interim Revisions, 2011,

    (C) Interim Revisions, 2012, and

    (D) Interim Revisions, 2014.

    (v) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, 2014, with:

    (A) 2015 Interim Revisions.

    (B) [Reserved].

    (vi) AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2007, with:

    (A) Interim Revisions, 2008,

    (B) Interim Revisions, 2010,

    (C) Interim Revisions, 2011,

    (D) Interim Revisions, 2012,

    (E) Interim Revisions, 2014, and

    (F) Interim Revisions, 2015

    (vii) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2010 Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition, 2010, with:

    (A) Interim Revisions, 2011, and

    (B) Interim Revisions, 2012

    (viii) Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO 2013.

    (2) American Welding Society (AWS), 8869 NW 36 Street, #130 Miami, FL 33166-6672; www.aws.org; or (800) 443-9353 or (305) 443-9353.

    (i) D1.4/D1.4M: 2011 Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel, 2011.

    (ii) [Reserved].

    (e) The FHWA supports using, as design resources to achieve context sensitive designs, guides that national organizations develop from peer-reviewed research, or equivalent guides that are developed in cooperation with State or local officials, when such guides are not in conflict with Federal laws and regulations.

    [FR Doc. 2015-25931 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9719] RIN 1545-BM62 Notional Principal Contracts; Swaps With Nonperiodic Payments AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Temporary regulations; correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains amendments to temporary regulations relating to guidance for the treatment of nonperiodic payments made or received pursuant to certain notional principal contracts. These amendments change the applicability date of the embedded loan rule for the treatment of nonperiodic payments from November 4, 2015, to the later of January 1, 2017, or six months after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. The amendments to the temporary regulations provide guidance to taxpayers who are parties making and receiving nonperiodic payments under notional principal contracts.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These amendments are effective on October 13, 2015.

    Applicability Date: For the date of applicability, see § 1.446-3T(j)(2), as corrected.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexa Dubert at (202) 317-6945 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The temporary regulations that are the subject of these amendments are under section 446(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The temporary regulations (TD 9719) were published in the Federal Register on Friday, May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26437).

    Need for Amendments

    Section 1.446-3T(g)(4)(i) of the temporary regulations provides that, subject to certain exceptions set forth in § 1.446-3T(g)(4)(ii), a notional principal contract with one or more nonperiodic payments is treated as two separate transactions consisting of an on-market, level payment swap and one or more loans (the embedded loan rule). Section 1.446-3T(g)(4)(i) eliminated the exception to the embedded loan rule for non-significant, nonperiodic payments set forth in the final regulations (TD 8491) published in the Federal Register on October 14, 1993 (58 FR 53125) (the 1993 Regulations). See § 1.446-3. Section 1.446-3T(g)(4)(i) applies to notional principal contracts entered into on or after November 4, 2015. After publication of the temporary regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS received comments requesting the delay of the applicability date of the embedded loan rule set forth in the temporary regulations. In response to those comments, this document amends the applicability date to make § 1.446-3T(g)(4)(i) and § 1.446-3T(g)(6) Example 2 apply to notional principal contracts entered into on or after the later of January 1, 2017, or 180 days after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. Prior to the date of applicability of § 1.446-3T(g)(4)(i), as corrected, taxpayers may continue to apply the 1993 Regulations that (except for purposes of section 956) limit the application of the embedded loan rule to nonperiodic payments that are significant.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    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 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.446-3T is amended by revising paragraph (j)(2) to read as follows:
    § 1.446-3T Notional principal contracts (temporary).

    (j) * * *

    (2) Application of § 1.446-3T(g)(4). Paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section and paragraph (g)(6) Example 2 of this section apply to notional principal contracts entered into on or after the later of January 1, 2017, or 180 days after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. Paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section applies to notional principal contracts entered into on or after May 8, 2015. However, before the later of January 1, 2017, or 180 days after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section as final regulations in the Federal Register, taxpayers may rely on the provision in § 1.446-3(g)(4), as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2015, which (except for purposes of section 956) limits the application of the embedded loan rule to nonperiodic payments that are significant, even if the requirements for the exceptions in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section are not met. Taxpayers may apply paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section, paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section, or both to notional principal contracts entered into before the dates set forth in this paragraph (j)(2).

    Martin Franks, Branch Chief, Publications & Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-25921 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0921] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Great Egg Harbor Bay; Somers Point, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay in the vicinity of the Garden State Parkway Bridge in Somers Point, NJ. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on a portion of the Great Egg Harbor Bay while critical girder erection work is being conducted in response to the rehabilitation project of the main navigational channel section of the bridge. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the bridge construction operations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from October 13, 2015 through December 5, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from October 5, 2015 through October 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0921 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4851, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port 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 because this critical phase of the rehabilitation work to the Garden State Parkway Bridge, main channel section, poses a safety threat to maritime traffic and a safety zone is needed. Furthermore, notification of the proposed work was not received until September 18, 2015. Due to the need for an immediate response and the late notification of the work, providing a notice and comment period would be impractical.

    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 because allowing this construction to go forward without a safety zone in place would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with bridge construction operations and navigation channel closure.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge construction operations starting October 5, 2015, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of bridge work, vessels, and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge work is being conducted.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from October 5, 2015, through December 5, 2015, and the zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily, excluding Sundays. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of vessels and machinery, at approximate position, 39°17′32″ N., 074°37′32″ W., being used by personnel for construction and repair of the Garden State Parkway Bridge over the Great Egg Harbor Bay in Somers Point, NJ. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while bridge construction operations are being conducted. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or make satisfactory passing arrangements with the construction vessel per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR Subchapter E). During portions of this project the main navigation channel will be closed each day for vessel traffic from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., excluding Sundays. These closures are necessary for safety due to hazards associated with bridge maintenance. Bridge work will stop and the channel will be clear for vessels to pass under the bridge between 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday; during these hours when bridge work is stopped, mariners may transit the main channel without restrictions. In addition, the channel will be fully available on Sundays and vessels may transit freely. At all times, secondary bridge spans will be clear to pass; vessels able to pass under secondary channel spans may do so at any time. There will be number of working days that the navigation channel will not be obstructed; however, mariners wishing to transit Monday through Saturday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. must make passing arrangements with the on scene construction vessel or obtain permission from the COTP or his representative.

    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.

    A. 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 regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit from the hours of 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., daily, excluding Sundays. At other times, vessel master may request permission to transit the safety zone. There will be number of working days that the navigation channel will not be obstructed. At all times, secondary bridge spans will be clear to pass; vessels able to pass under secondary channel spans may do so at any time without requesting permission. This safety zone will impact a small designated area of the Great Egg Harbor Bay, in Somers Point, NJ for no more than an 11 hour period each day.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    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.

    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.

    C. 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).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. 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.

    F. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone in force for no more than 11 hours each day, from October 1, 2015, to December 5, 2015, that prohibits entry within 200 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel conducting bridge work on the Garden State Parkway Bridge over the Great Egg Harbor Bay, in Somers Point, NJ. 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.

    G. 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.

    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 temporary § 165.T05-0921, to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0921 Safety Zone, Great Egg Harbor Bay; Somers Point, NJ.

    (a) Location: The following area is a safety zone: All the waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay, 200 yards around the main channel portion of the bridge, in approximate position 39°17′32″ N., 074°37′32″ W. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 83 (NAD 83).

    (b) Definitions.

    (1) The Captain of the Port means the Commander of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Regulations: The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR part 165 subpart C apply to the safety zone created by this section.

    (1) During periods of full channel closures, the main navigational channel will be obstructed and vessels will be unable to pass. Secondary bridge spans will be clear to pass; vessels able to pass under secondary channel spans may do so.

    (2) Vessels wishing to transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may do so if they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with the on-scene construction vessel in accordance with the Navigational Rules in 33 CFR Subchapter E. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing arrangements with the on-scene construction vessel, they may request permission from the COTP or his designated representative on VHF channel 16.

    (3) There will be number of working days that the navigation channel will not be obstructed; however, mariners wishing to transit during the enforcement period must still comply with the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

    (4) The main channel will be clear from the hours of 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. daily, and every Sunday throughout the course of the project. Vessels may transit through the safety zone at these times without restriction.

    (5) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations: Enforcing laws; servicing aids to navigation, and emergency response vessels.

    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.

    (e) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day except Sundays, from October 5, 2015, to December 5, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    B.A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25872 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0657; FRL-9935-18-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; MI; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions by Michigan regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the requirements of the CAA. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on June 24, 2015, and EPA received one comment letter during the comment period, which ended on July 24, 2015. The concerns raised in this letter, as well as EPA's responses, are addressed in this final action.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is the background of these SIP submissions? II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of these SIP submissions? A. What does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses infrastructure SIP submissions from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted on July 10, 2014, for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    B. Why did the state make this SIP submission?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs already meet those requirements.

    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance documents, including the most recent guidance document entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” issued on September 13, 2013.

    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon Michigan's SIP submissions that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on the state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (collectively referred to as “director's discretion”); and, (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemaking. A detailed rationale, history, and interpretation related to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in our May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

    In addition, EPA is not acting on submissions related to a portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility, section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to visibility for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS submittals, and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate transport significant contribution and interference with maintenance for 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS submittals. EPA is also not acting on submissions related to section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. The rationale for not acting on submittals regarding elements of these requirements was included in EPA's June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking.

    EPA's June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking also proposed approving a submission from Michigan addressing the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA. EPA finalized this approval in a separate rulemaking on August 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 52399).

    II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect to Michigan's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS closed on July 24, 2015. EPA received one comment letter, which pertained to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, submitted jointly by the Sierra Club and Earthjustice. A synopsis of the comments contained in this letter and EPA's responses are provided below.

    Comment 1: The commenter states that, on its face, the CAA “requires I-SIPs to be adequate to prevent violations of the NAAQS.” In support, the commenter quotes the language in section 110(a)(1) that requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A) which requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA and which commenter claimed include the maintenance plan requirement. The commenter notes the CAA definition of “emission limit” and reads these provisions together to require “enforceable emission limitations on source emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.”

    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in the manner suggested by the commenter. Section 110 is only one provision that is part of the complex structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan provide for “implementation, maintenance and enforcement” to mean that the infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state must demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program.

    Our interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in “air quality control regions” (AQCRs), and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that a section 110 plan must provide for “attainment” of the NAAQS, and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include “emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].” In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS.

    In 1990, many areas still had air quality that did not meet the NAAQS, and Congress again amended the CAA, adding yet another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS, with the primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A).

    Additionally, Congress replaced the clause “as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]” with “as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.” Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS.

    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has interpreted this to mean that, for purposes of section 110, the state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As EPA stated in “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” dated September 13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), “[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an opportunity . . . to review the basic structural requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in light of each new or revised NAAQS.” Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2.

    Comment 2: The commenter cites two excerpts from the legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1970 asserting that they support an interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of Michigan. The commenter also contends that the legislative history of the CAA supports the interpretation that infrastructure SIPs under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations, citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference Report accompanying the 1970 CAA.

    Response 2: The CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section 110 concerning demonstrating attainment. In any event, the two excerpts of legislative history the commenter cites merely provide that states should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs; they do not mention or otherwise address whether states are required to include maintenance plans for all areas of the state as part of the infrastructure SIP.

    Comment 3: The commenter cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that each plan must “demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS].” The commenter asserts that this regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits necessary to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter states that “[a]lthough these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act separated Infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs—a process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments—the regulations apply to ISIPs.” The commenter relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA stated that “[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the Act. . . .” 51 FR 40656 (November 7, 1986).

    Response 3: The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits “adequate to prohibit NAAQS violations” and adequate or sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial matter, EPA notes and the commenter recognizes this regulatory provision was initially promulgated and “restructured and consolidated” prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress removed all references to “attainment” in section 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these provisions to apply when states are developing “control strategy” SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 1990, such as section 175A and 182.

    The commenter suggests that these provisions must apply to section 110 SIPs because, in the preamble to EPA's action “restructuring and consolidating” provisions in part 51, EPA stated that the new attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA were “beyond the scope” of the rulemaking. It is important to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new substantive planning requirements, but rather to consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing the new “Part D” attainment planning obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. Id. at 40657.

    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements interpreting the provisions of new “Part D” of the CAA, it is clear that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (“Control strategy: SOX and PM (portion)”), 51.14 (“Control strategy: CO, HC, Ox and NO2 (portion)”), 51.80 (“Demonstration of attainment: Pb (portion)”), and 51.82 (“Air quality data (portion)”). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112 contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.

    Comment 4: The commenter references two prior EPA rulemaking actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to disapprove SIPs, and claimed they were actions in which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. The commenter first points to a 2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan addressing the sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. In that action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for disapproving a revision to the state plan on the basis that the state failed to demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, the commenter cites a 2013 proposed disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the revision attempted to remove an emission limit that applied to a specific emissions source at a facility in the state. EPA relied on 40 CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the revision, stating that the state had not demonstrated that the emission limit was “redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions.” EPA further stated in that proposed disapproval that the state had not demonstrated that removal of the limit would not “affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration.”

    Response 4: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions referenced by the commenter establish how EPA reviews infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rule and the now final Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing initial infrastructure SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather reviewing revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent.

    EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP (71 FR 12623).

    Similarly, the Indiana action also does not support for the commenter's position (78 FR 78720). The review in that rule was of a completely different requirement than the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. Rather, in that case, the state had an approved SO2 attainment plan and was seeking to remove from the SIP provisions relied on as part of the modeled attainment demonstration. EPA determined that the state had failed to demonstrate under section 110(l) of the CAA that the SIP revision would not result in increased SO2 emissions and thus not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. Nothing in that rulemaking addresses the necessary content of the initial infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must demonstrate why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.

    Comment 5: The commenter discusses several cases applying to the CAA which it claims support its contention that courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable emissions limits in infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations of the NAAQS and demonstrate maintenance throughout the area. The commenter first cites to language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement for “emission limitations” and stating that emission limitations “are specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meet the national standards.” The commenter also cites to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS and Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The commenter contends that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that “SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified” to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter quotes several additional opinions in this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans—SIPs—that `assure' attainment and maintenance of [NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations”); Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the state”). The commenter also cites Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the rules would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Response 5: None of the cases the commenter cites supports the commenter's contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that infrastructure SIPs include detailed plans providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. With the exception of Train, 421 U.S. 60, none of the cases the commenter cites concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context of a challenge to an EPA action, revisions to a SIP that were required and approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA or in the context of an enforcement action, the court references section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of its decision.

    In Train, a case that was decided almost 40 years ago, the court addressed a state revision to an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory provision at that time regulating such submissions. The issue in that case concerned whether changes to requirements that would occur before attainment was required were variances that should be addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions or were “postponements” that must be addressed under section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive criteria. The court concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that revisions to SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the issue was not whether a section 110 SIP needs to provide for attainment or whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS, a reference that was removed in 1990.

    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps. The court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that provision. Yet, even if the court had interpreted that provision, EPA notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has little bearing on the issue here.

    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of “emissions limitation,” not whether section 110 requires the state to demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the NAAQS as part of its infrastructure SIPs. The language from the opinion which the commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not raise any concerns about whether the measures relied on by the state in the infrastructure SIP are “emissions limitations,” thus, the decision in this case has no bearing here.

    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the court reviewed a Federal implementation plan that EPA promulgated after a long history of the state failing to submit an adequate SIP. The court cited generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but this language was not part of the court's holding in the case.

    The commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is inaccurate. Rather, the court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision and the court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore, the commenter also quotes the court's statement that “SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified” but that statement specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that case was the state's “new source” permitting program, not its infrastructure SIP.

    Two of the cases the commenter cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret the provision of CAA section 110(l) governing “revisions” to plans, and not the initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a new or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this instance. In those cases, the courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA.

    Comment 6: The commenter contends that EPA cannot approve the section 110(a)(2)(A) portion of Michigan's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP revision because an infrastructure SIP should include enforceable emission limits to prevent NAAQS violations in areas not designated nonattainment. Specifically, the commenter cited air monitoring reports for Allegan, Berrien, and Muskegon Counties indicating violations of the NAAQS based on 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014 design values. The commenter alleges that these violations demonstrate that the infrastructure SIP fails to ensure that air pollution levels meet or are below the level of the NAAQS and thus the infrastructure SIP must be disapproved. The commenter noted that the design values for the monitors in Allegan and Muskegon Counties have exceeded the 2008 ozone standard for every three year period since 2001-2003, with the exception of 2008-2010. The commenter also notes that the EPA denied the Sierra Club's petition to redesignate all areas violating the 2008 ozone standard based on 2012 data. The commenter contends that, as a result of the denial of the petition, the areas mentioned above do not have any requirements associated with nonattainment areas.

    Furthermore, the commenter suggests that there are available controls for the state to adopt for reducing NOX, a precursor to ozone. The commenter also contends that EPA should have conducted an analysis to determine whether the SIP revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, as required by CAA section 110(l).

    Response 6: We disagree with the commenter that infrastructure SIPs must include detailed attainment and maintenance plans for all areas of the state and must be disapproved if air quality data that became available late in the process or after the SIP was due and submitted changes the status of areas within the state. We believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS, and that contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

    The suggestion that the infrastructure SIP must include measures addressing violations of the standard that did not occur until shortly before or even after the SIP was due and submitted cannot be supported. The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change in an area's design value for each year over that period. Moreover, the CAA recognizes and has provisions to address changes in air quality over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or changing from nonattainment to attainment. These include provisions providing for redesignation in section 107(d) and provisions in section 110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on a state to revise its SIP, as appropriate.

    We do not believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires detailed planning SIPs demonstrating either attainment or maintenance for specific geographic areas of the state. The infrastructure SIP is triggered by promulgation of the NAAQS, not designation. Moreover, infrastructure SIPs are due three years following promulgation of the NAAQS and designations are not due until two years (or in some cases three years) following promulgation of the NAAQS. Thus, during a significant portion of the period that the state has available for developing the infrastructure SIP, it does not know what the designation will be for individual areas of the state.1 In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state, and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.

    1 While it is true that there may be some monitors within a state with values so high as to make a nonattainment designation of the county with that monitor almost a certainty, the geographic boundaries of the nonattainment area associated with that monitor would not be known until EPA issues final designations.

    For all of the above reasons, we disagree with the commenter that EPA must disapprove an infrastructure SIP revision if there are monitored violations of the standard in the state and the section 110(a)(2)(A) revision does not have detailed plans for demonstrating how the state will bring that area into attainment. Rather, EPA believes that the proper inquiry when EPA is acting on a submittal is whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements.

    Moreover, Michigan's SIP contains existing emission reduction measures that control emissions of VOCs and NOX found in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1601 through R 336.1661 and R 336.1701 through R 336.1710 for VOCs and sections R 336.1801 through R 336.1834 for NOX. Michigan's SIP revision reflects several provisions that can lead to reductions in ground level ozone and its precursors. The Michigan SIP relies on measures and programs used to implement previous ozone NAAQS. Because there is no substantive difference between the previous ozone NAAQS and the more recent ozone NAAQS, other than the level of the standard, the provisions relied on by Michigan will provide benefits for the new NAAQS; in other words, the measures reduce overall ground-level ozone and its precursors and are not limited to reducing ozone levels to meet one specific NAAQS.

    The commenters assertion that CAA section 110(l) requirements should apply are incorrect, because the infrastructure SIP does not approve any new rules or rule modifications and therefore by itself does not have any effect on emissions of the relevant pollutants. Rather, approving Michigan's infrastructure SIP revision is simply affirming that Michigan has sufficient authority to take the types of actions required by the CAA in order to bring such areas back into attainment and implement the current NAAQS. The commenter has not provided any information to demonstrate that emissions will be affected by the infrastructure SIP submission.

    The denial of the redesignation petition also is not relevant to Michigan's infrastructure SIP because as mentioned above, the designation process and infrastructure submittals are separable actions on completely different timelines and infrastructure requirements are the same regardless of the designation status of the area.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in our June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking and the responses to comments, above, EPA is taking final action to approve Michigan's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as proposed.2 In the June 24, 2015, rulemaking, EPA also proposed approval for Michigan's CAA section 128 submittal. EPA finalized this approval in separate rulemaking on August 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 52399). Our final actions, by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

    2 As stated previously, EPA will take later, separate action on portions of Michigan's 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals including the portions of the SIP submittals addressing the visibility portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS submittals.

    Element 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2 2012 PM2.5 (A)—Emission limits and other control measures A A A A (B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system A A A A (C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures A A A A (C)2—PSD A A A A (D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate transport—significant contribution NA A NA NA (D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate transport—interfere with maintenance NA A NA NA (D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—prevention of significant deterioration A A A A (D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—protect visibility NA NA NA NA (D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement A A A A (E)1—Adequate resources A A A A (E)2—State board requirements A A A A (F)—Stationary source monitoring system A A A A (G)—Emergency power A A A A (H)—Future SIP revisions A A A A (I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D + + + + (J)1—Consultation with government officials A A A A (J)2—Public notification A A A A (J)3—PSD A A A A (J)4—Visibility protection + + + + (K)—Air quality modeling/data A A A A (L)—Permitting fees A A A A (M)—Consultation and participation by affected local entities A A A A

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

    A Approve. NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking. + Not Germaine to Infrastructure. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in 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 December 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 23, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries at the end of the table for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,” “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS,” “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS,” and “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 52.1170 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Statewide 7/10/2014 10/13/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II).
    [FR Doc. 2015-25839 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 49 CFR Part 830 [Docket No. NTSB-AS-2015-0001] Interpretation of Notification Requirements To Exclude Model Aircraft; Correction AGENCY:

    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

    ACTION:

    Notice of interpretation; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The NTSB published a notice of legal interpretation in the Federal Register on September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54736), titled: “Interpretation of Notification Requirements to Exclude Model Aircraft.” The document contained an inadvertent typographical error. This document corrects the error.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Tochen, NTSB General Counsel, at (202) 314-6080.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    The Notice of Legal Interpretation that was the subject of FR Doc. 2015-22933, published on September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54736), is corrected as follows: On page 54736, in the second column, first paragraph, line 17, is amended by changing the word “incidence” to “incidents.”

    David K. Tochen, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26015 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 140904754-5188-02] RIN 0648-BF40 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule announces inseason changes to management measures in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), is intended to prevent exceeding the 2015 Area 2A Pacific halibut quota for incidental retention in the sablefish primary fishery and the Area 2A Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and to prevent exceeding the annual catch limit (ACL) for sablefish north 36° N. lat.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Williams, phone: 206-526-4646, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/. Copies of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Groundfish Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280.

    Background Closing Incidental Pacific Halibut Retention in the Sablefish Primary Fishery

    The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) sets the Pacific halibut total allowable catch (TAC) on an annual basis. A portion of the TAC is available to fisheries in Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West Coast). The Council's Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) guides allocation of the Area 2A portion of the TAC to the various commercial and recreational fisheries in Area 2A. Specifically, it provides that if the Area 2A TAC is greater than 900,000 lb, the portion of the Washington sport allocation that is in excess of 214,110 lb is available to the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA.

    The final Area 2A halibut TAC for 2015 was adopted by the IPHC at their January 26 through January 30, 2015 meeting. Following this meeting, NMFS published two final rules implementing the 2015 halibut TAC and the CSP. The first rule implementing the TAC published on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771) and second rule implementing the CSP published on April 1, 2015 (80 FR 17344). The final 2A TAC resulted in an allocation to the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) sablefish primary fishery of 10,348 lb. The incidental fishery opened on April 1, 2015, with a landing limit of 75 lb dressed weight of halibut per 1,000 lb dressed weight of sablefish, and up to two additional Pacific halibut in excess of this ratio. This ratio is implemented in LEFG sablefish primary fishery regulations at § 660.231(b)(3)(iv).

    In late August 2015, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) notified NMFS and IPHC that the incidental Pacific halibut quota was projected to be attained and that a closure was likely before the end of the scheduled season on October 31. Following this notification, NMFS, IPHC, and WDFW met on August 25, 2015, reviewed the catch data, and the IPHC closed incidental Pacific halibut retention in the LEFG sablefish primary fishery at 12:01 a.m. on September 1, 2015. This action was taken consistent with IPHC's inseason authority, as described in section 5 of the annual IPHC regulations and in the CSP.

    The Council was notified of the IPHC inseason action at its September 11-16, 2015, meeting. To make clear that retention of incidentally caught Pacific halibut in the LEFG sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, WA, is closed, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing a modification to § 660.231(b)(3)(iv). Currently that regulation states the incidental retention ratio; the modification would state that incidental retention is closed.

    Closure of the Limited Entry Fixed Gear and Open Access Sablefish Daily Trip Limit Fisheries North of 36° N. Lat.

    The best available fisheries information indicates that catch of sablefish in the commercial non-trawl fisheries north of 36° N. lat. is higher than anticipated. The Council considered updated projections and the status of ongoing groundfish fisheries at its September 11-16, 2015, meeting. Fishery models, updated with the best estimate reports from the Pacific Fishery Information Network through August 31, 2015, project that sablefish landings through the end of the year would exceed the sablefish allocations in both the LEFG and open access (OA) daily trip limit (DTL) fisheries north of 36° N. lat. Projected landings in the LEFG DTL fishery north of 36° N. lat. vary based on assumptions on the price per pound. If no action is taken and this higher than anticipated catch continues in the LEFG DTL fishery, projected landings range from 126 percent of the allocation (low price assumption) to 139 percent of the allocation (high price assumption). Also, if no action is taken and higher than anticipated catch continues in the OA fishery, projected landings are 126 percent of the allocation.

    Sablefish is managed, in part, with two-month cumulative limits. Information regarding higher than anticipated catch of sablefish in these fisheries came during the Period 5 two-month cumulative limit period (September-October). It is very likely that most participating vessels will have caught their Period 5 two-month limits by the time a closure could be in effect. Therefore, the Council recommended a closure beginning at the start of the next bi-monthly cumulative limit period (Period 6, November-December), rather than during Period 5. Closing these sablefish fisheries November 1 is projected to reduce the overage of the allocations for both LEFG and OA DTL fisheries. Landings in the LEFG DTL fishery would be reduced to 111 percent—116 percent of the allocation and landings in the OA fishery reduced to 102 percent of the allocation. The Period 6 closure reduces the risk of exceeding the north 36° N. lat. ACL due to the overages in the LEFG and OA DTL allocations, and keeps total projected impacts across all fisheries below the 2015 sablefish north 36° N. lat. ACL (4,608 mt out of a 4,792 mt ACL)

    NMFS agrees with the Council recommendation and rationale and is implementing a closure for sablefish in the LEFG and OA DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat., beginning November 1, 2015. Starting November 1, it will be prohibited to take and retain, possess, or land sablefish in the LEFG and OA DTL fisheries north 36° N. lat.

    Classification

    This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations and the Halibut Act and its implementing regulations.

    This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.

    NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective October 13, 2015.

    At the September Council meeting, the Council recommended that these changes be implemented as quickly as possible to make the groundfish regulation consistent with the IPHC inseason action which has already been taken and the sablefish closure based on information available at the September Council meeting. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to draft this document and undergo proposed and final rulemaking before these actions need to be in effect. For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, the halibut allocation to the sablefish fishery and ACLs for federally managed species in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law and the halibut allocations implemented under the authority in the Halibut Act. These adjustments to management measures must be implemented in a timely manner to prevent the Area 2A portion of the 2015 halibut TAC and the 2015 sablefish north 36° N. lat. ACL from being exceeded. The elimination of Pacific halibut retention in the LEFG sablefish primary fishery is intended to prevent exceeding the Area 2A portion of the 2015 Pacific halibut TAC and the allocation to the sablefish primary fishery. The closure of the sablefish fishery for LEFG and OA DTL fisheries is intended to prevent exceeding the 2015 sablefish ACL north 36° N. lat. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the groundfish biennial harvest specifications and management measures established for 2015-2016 and the 2015 Pacific halibut final rules.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Indian Fisheries.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. In § 660.231, paragraph (b)(3)(iv) is revised to read as follows:
    § 660.231 Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Incidental halibut retention north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.). No halibut retention is allowed during the sablefish primary fishery.

    3. Table 2 (North) and 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, are revised to read as follows: ER13OC15.000 ER13OC15.001 ER13OC15.002 4. Table 3 (North) and 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F, are revised to read as follows: ER13OC15.003 ER13OC15.004 ER13OC15.005 ER13OC15.006
    [FR Doc. 2015-25986 Filed 10-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 197 Tuesday, October 13, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3985; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-182-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-04-03, for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2010-04-03 currently requires accomplishing repetitive detailed visual inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the right side and left side of the front and rear spars, and repair if needed. Since we issued AD 2010-04-03, Airbus improved the ultrasonic inspection program to allow earlier crack detection and to extend the repetitive inspection intervals. We have determined these inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would continue to require the repetitive detailed inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the front and rear spars, and repair if needed, and would require supplemental repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels and repair if needed. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the right side and left side of the front and rear spars, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 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—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2015-3985; 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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-2015-3985; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-182-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

    On January 28, 2010, we issued AD 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010). AD 2010-04-03 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010), the manufacturer improved the ultrasonic inspection program to allow earlier crack detection and to extend the repetitive inspection intervals. We have determined these inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0200R1, dated September 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following scheduled maintenance, cracks were found around the wing top skin panels fastener holes at Rib 2, between Stringer (STG) 2 and STG14.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane. The General Visual Inspection required by the existing applicable Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) tasks may not be adequate to detect these cracks.

    To address this issue, Airbus developed an inspection programme based on repetitive detailed inspections (DET) to ensure that any visible cracks in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2 along Rib 2 are detected in time and repaired appropriately. EASA issued [EASA] AD 2008-0211 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2008-0211] to require implementation of this inspection programme.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus improved the inspection programme with an ultrasonic inspection to allow earlier crack detection, to subsequently reduce the scope of potential repair action, and to extend the intervals of the repetitive inspections.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2014-0200R1] retains the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0211, which is superseded, and requires supplementary repetitive ultrasonic inspections [for cracking] of the wing top skin panel 1 and 2 between STG2 and STG10 at Rib 2 [and repair if needed].

    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-2015-3985. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008,

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014.

    This service information describes procedures for detailed visual and ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes of the wing top skin panels between the right side and left side of the front and rear spars at certain locations, and repair if needed. 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 the same type design.

    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 RC (required for compliance) 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 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 5 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 $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $425 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-3985; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-182-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 27, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2010-04-03, Amendment 39-16196 (75 FR 6852, February 12, 2010).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the right side and left side of the front and rear spars. This AD was also prompted by the development of an ultrasonic inspection program to allow for earlier crack detection and extend the repetitive inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the right side and left side of the front and rear spars, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the initial compliance time and thereafter at repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (1) Accomplish a detailed inspection for cracking around fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along rib 2 between the front and rear spars on both the left-side and right-side of the fuselage.

    (2) Accomplish an ultrasonic inspection for cracking around fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along rib 2, between stringer 2 and stringer 10 on the left-side and right-side of the fuselage.

    (h) Compliance Times for Airplanes Not Previously Inspected

    (1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 4,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 18,700 flight cycles or 37,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

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

    (2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an average flight time (AFT) of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 5,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 17,300 flight cycles or 48,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

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

    (3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 12,800 flight cycles or 64,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.

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

    (i) Compliance Times of Airplanes Previously Inspected

    For airplanes previously inspected before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010: At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, thereafter at the repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 3,500 flight hours or 1,700 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.

    (2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 4,600 flight hours or 1,600 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.

    (3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 6,100 flight hours or 1,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.

    (j) Compliance Times if No Ultrasonic Equipment Is Available

    If no ultrasonic equipment is available for the initial or second inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, accomplish the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. After accomplishing the detailed inspection, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable compliance times specified by paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD. Subsequently, repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes not previously inspected before the effective date of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the initial compliance time specified by paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (2) For airplanes previously inspected before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), or (j)(2)(iii) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014.

    (k) Repair of Cracking

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking 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).

    (l) Terminating Action for Certain Repetitive Inspections

    Accomplishment of a repair using the service information identified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), or (l)(3) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, only for the repaired areas of the airplane.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014.

    (m) Definition of Average Flight Time (AFT)

    For the purposes of this AD, the AFT should be established as specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD for the determination of the compliance times.

    (1) The inspection threshold is defined as the total flight hours accumulated (counted from take-off to touch-down), divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the effective date of this AD.

    (2) The initial inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of the initial inspection threshold.

    (3) The second inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated between the initial and second threshold.

    (n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.

    (o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0200R1, dated September 19, 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-2015-3985.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this 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 28, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25758 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3661; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-24-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dowty Propellers Constant Speed Propellers AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dowty Propellers R352/6-123-F/1, R352/6-123-F/2, and R410/6-123-F/35 model propellers. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of dowel hole cracks in the face of the rear hub half. This proposed AD would require a records review to determine repair status and marking the affected propeller hubs as required. This proposed AD would also require installing dowel hole liners as necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of structural integrity of the propeller hub, which could result in damage to the propeller and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dowty Propellers, 114 Powers Court, Sterling, VA 20166; phone: 703-421-4434; fax: 703-450-0087; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.http://dowty.com/services/repair-and-overhaul. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3661; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7761; fax 781-238-7170; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3661; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-24-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 with FAA personnel concerning this NPRM.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0158, dated July 30, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Cracking around the hub location dowel holes in the face of the rear hub half has occurred sporadically. Previous investigations found no manufacturing defects in cracked hubs and concluded that the hub cracking was caused by damage to the dowel holes during propeller installation.

    Since that original SB was issued, three hubs have been found to show cracking around the location dowel holes. The hubs were all found cracked within a short period of time and all had low time since new.

    This condition, if not detected, can adversely affect the structural integrity of the propeller hub, with possible damage to the propeller and to the aeroplane.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3661.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dowty Propellers has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. F50-61-A165, Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing liners in the hub location dowel holes in the face of the rear hub half and marking the hub with the repair number. 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.

    Other Related Service Information

    Dowty Propellers has issued Component Maintenance Manual, 61-10-34, Repair No. 53, dated May 15, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing liners in the hub location dowel holes and marking the repair number on modified hubs.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This NPRM would require marking and inspecting the affected propeller hubs to determine repair status and installing dowel hole liners as necessary.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 4 propellers installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 hours per propeller to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $322 per propeller. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,988.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dowty Propellers: Docket No. FAA-2015-3661; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-24-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 14, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dowty Propellers R352/6-123-F/1, R352/6-123-F/2, and R410/6-123-F/35 model propellers, part numbers (P/Ns) 660715001, 660715004, and 660715005 with hub P/Ns 660715201, 660715255, 660720217, 660720241, 660720252, 660720260, and 660720288, installed.

    (d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of dowel hole cracks in the face of the rear hub half. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of structural integrity of the propeller hub, which could result in damage to the propeller and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Actions and Compliance

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

    (1) At the next removal of the propeller from the airplane, or within 7,500 flight hours (FHs), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD do the following:

    (i) Review propeller maintenance records to determine if the affected propeller hub has been repaired in accordance with Dowty Propellers Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. F50-61-A165 Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.

    (ii) If, during the maintenance records review required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD, an affected hub is found not repaired then, before next flight, install liners into the hub location dowel holes and mark the hub. Use Dowty Propellers ASB No. F50-61-A165 Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015 to install the liners and mark the hub.

    (iii) If, during the maintenance records review required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD, an affected hub is found repaired then, before next flight, mark the hub using Dowty Propellers ASB No. F50-61-A165 Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015.

    (f) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) You may take credit for maintenance records reviews and installations that are required by paragraph (e) of this AD if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD using Dowty Propellers ASB No. F50-61-A165 Revision 1, dated May 12, 2015 or initial issue dated November 19, 2012.

    (2) You may take credit for any maintenance records reviews or corrective actions that are required by paragraph (e) of this AD if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD using Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 61-10-34, Repair No. 53, dated August 11, 2008, which relates to repair scheme 650510057.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7761; fax: 781-238-7170; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0158, dated July 30, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-3661.

    (3) Dowty Propellers ASB No. F50-61-A165 Revision 2, dated July 28, 2015 and CMM 61-10-34, Repair No. 53, dated August 11, 2008 can be obtained from Dowty Propellers, using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this proposed AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dowty Propellers, 114 Powers Court, Sterling, VA 20166; phone: 703-421-4434; fax: 703-450-0087; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.http://dowty.com/services/repair-and-overhaul.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 1, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25643 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 210 [Release No. 33-9929A; 34-75985A; IC-31849A; File No. S7-20-15] RIN 3235-AL77 Request for Comment on the Effectiveness of Financial Disclosures About Entities Other Than the Registrant AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Request for comment; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the Federal Register of October 1, 2015, seeking public comment regarding the financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-X for certain entities other than a registrant. The RIN was omitted from this document. This correction is being published to add the RIN to that document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd E. Hardiman, Associate Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-3516, Division of Corporation Finance; Duc Dang, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3386, Office of the Chief Accountant; or Matthew Giordano, Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-6892, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 1, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-24875, on page 59083, in the second column, in the heading of the document, the RIN is added to read as 3235-AL77.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25948 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-115452-14] RIN 1545-BM12 Disguised Payments for Services; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document extends the comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-115452-14) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 23, 2015. The proposed regulations relate to disguised payments for services under section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43652), is extended to November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115452-14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115452-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-115452-14).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacklyn M. Goldberg at (202) 317-6850 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43652) announced that written and electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 21, 2015. Due to an intense public interest, the comment due date to receive electronic comments and requests for a public hearing has been extended to Monday, November 16, 2015.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-25940 Filed 10-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 215, and 252 RIN 0750-AI64 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Evaluating Reasonableness of Price for Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2013-D034) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD issued a proposed rule (DFARS Case 2013-D034) on August 3, 2015 to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. The comment period on the proposed rule is being reopened and the deadline for submitting comments is being extended to November 13, 2015.

    DATES:

    For the proposed rule published on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45918), submit comments by November 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2013-D034, using any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2013-D034” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2013-D034.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2013-D034” on your attached document.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2013-D034 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-6099.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On August 3, 2015, DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 80 FR 45918 to implement section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 831 requires the issuance of guidance on the use of the authority to require the submission of other than cost or pricing data. The comment period for the proposed rule, which closed on October 2, 2015, is being reopened to provide additional time for interested parties to submit comments on the proposed rule. The deadline for submission of public comments is extended to November 13, 2015.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 215, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26044 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5006-01-P
    80 197 Tuesday, October 13, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments; Renewal of a Currently Approved Collection: Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants and Awardees AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Financial Officer, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an approved information collection associated with Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants and Awardees.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by December 14, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by either one of the following methods:

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

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send to Director, Transparency and Accountability Reporting Division, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Room 3027-S, Stop Code 9011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    • Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806.

    All comments received will be available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://regulations.gov. or during regular business hours at the same address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tyson P. Whitney, Director, Transparency and Accountability Reporting Division, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Room 3027-S, Stop Code 9011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-8978; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an approved information collection associated with Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants and Awardees.

    Title: Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants and Awardees in Non-procurement Programs.

    OMB Control Number: 0505-0025.

    Expiration Date of Approval: February 2016.

    Form Numbers: AD-3030 (Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status For Corporate Clients), AD-3031 (Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status For Corporate Applicants).

    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) agencies and staff offices must comply with the restrictions set forth in sections 744 and 745 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, as amended and/or subsequently enacted), hereinafter Public Law 113-235, which prevents agencies from doing business with corporations that (1) have been convicted of a felony criminal violation under Federal law within the preceding 24 months preceding the award and/or (2) have any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; unless the agency or staff office has considered suspension or debarment of the recipient corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

    To comply with the appropriation restrictions, the information collection requires corporate applicants and awardees for USDA programs to represent accurately whether they have or do not have qualifying felony convictions or tax delinquencies that would prevent entrance into proposed business transactions with USDA. For non-procurement programs and transactions, these representations are collected on forms AD-3030 (Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status For Corporate Applicants) and AD-3031 (Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction Or Tax Delinquent Status For Corporate Applicants). This notice and proposed renewal of an approved information collection deal only with USDA non-procurement transactions. The categories of non-procurement transactions covered include: Non-procurement contracts, grants, loans, loan guarantees, cooperative agreements, and some memoranda of understanding/agreement. For more specific information about whether a particular non-procurement program or transaction is included in this list please contact the USDA agency or staff office responsible for the program or transaction in question.

    In Fiscal Years 2012-2014 the appropriation restriction provisions were not uniform across the government. To effectuate compliance, USDA initially created and received clearance of two sets of forms—one set for use by all USDA agencies and offices, except the Forest Service (AD-3030, AD-3031) and one set for use by the Forest Service (AD-3030-FS and AD-3031-FS). In 2015, Congress eliminated the multiple versions of the appropriation restriction provisions and enacted a single set of government-wide provisions for all agencies and departments, thereby allowing USDA to collect this data with one set of forms—AD-3030 and AD-3031. The current clearance for these forms expires February 2016. The representations continue to be required as reflected in Public Law 113-235. To ensure that USDA agencies and staff offices are positioned to continue compliance with the appropriation restrictions for their duration, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer is issuing this renewal approval notice for another formal three year clearance of the information collection request. Should the appropriation restrictions become ineffective or not be continued during the three year clearance period, this information request will be canceled when it is no longer required.

    Form AD-3030 (required during the application process) will effectuate compliance with the appropriation restrictions by requiring all corporate applicants to represent at the time of application for a non-procurement program whether they have any felony convictions or tax delinquencies that would prevent USDA from doing business with them. Form AD-3031 (applicable at the time of the award) requires an affirmative representation that corporate awardees for non-procurement transactions do not have any felony convictions or tax delinquencies. If the application and award process occurs in a single step, the agency or staff office may require concurrent submission of both forms. Corporations (for profit and non-profit entities) include, but are not limited to, any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the various territories of the United States.

    Collection of this information is necessary to ensure that USDA agencies and staff offices comply with the appropriation restrictions prohibiting the Government from doing business with corporations with felony convictions and/or tax delinquencies.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

    Frequency of Collection: Other: Corporations—AD-3030—each time they apply to participate in a multitude of USDA non-procurement programs; Awardees—AD-3031—each time they receive an award from USDA non-procurement programs.

    Type of Respondents: Corporate applicants and awardees for USDA non-procurement programs, including grants, cooperative agreements, loans, loan guarantees, some memoranda of understanding/agreement, and non-procurement contracts.

    Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 741,544.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.75.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 2,039,246.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 509,812.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies and staff offices, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological and other forms of information technology collection methods.

    All responses to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Jon M. Holladay, Chief Financial Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25233 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 6, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by November 12, 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. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    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.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Floriculture Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0093.

    Summary of Collection: The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics (NASS) is to prepare current official state and national estimates of crop and livestock production. Since 1985 Congress has provided funds to conduct an annual Commercial Floriculture Survey which obtains data on this important and growing industry. The Floriculture Survey is currently conducted in 15 States (California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington). General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which can be obtain by the collection of statistics...and shall distribute them among agriculturists”. The floriculture industry accounted for more than $5.9 billion in wholesale sales at the U.S. level.

    Need and Use of the Information: NASS obtains basic agricultural statistics on production and value of floriculture products. The target population for this survey is all operations with production and sales of at least $10,000 of floriculture products. Data collected from the survey will assess alternative agriculture opportunities, and provide statistics for Federal and State agencies to monitor the use of agricultural chemicals. If the information is not collected data users could not keep abreast of changes.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other-for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 8,218.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,950.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Mink Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0212.

    Summary of Collection: The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to prepare and issue current official State and national estimates of crop and livestock production. The mink program consists of two surveys: an annual census of all known mink producers in the 50 states (the Mink Survey) and an annual survey of two prominent mink pelt auction houses (the Mink Price Survey). Statistics on mink production are published for the 13 major states that account for nearly 100 percent of the total U.S. pelt production. There is no other source for this type of information. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204.

    Need and Use of the Information: NASS collects information on mink pelts produced by color, number of females bred to produce kits the following year, number of mink farms, average marketing price, and the value of pelts produced. The data is disseminated by NASS in the Mink Report and is used by the U.S. government and other groups.

    Description of Respondents: Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 352.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 89.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25851 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels for the Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities Grant Program AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces the availability of up to $10 million in fiscal year 2015 (FY15) and application deadlines for competitive grants to assist communities with extremely high energy costs. These grants are made available under the authority of section 19 of the Rural Electrification Act, of 1936 as amended (7 U.S.C. 918a) and program regulations at 7 CFR part 1709. Eligibility is limited to communities with average annual residential energy costs exceeding 275 percent of the national average. Grant funds may be used to acquire, construct, extend, upgrade, or otherwise improve energy generation, transmission, or distribution facilities serving eligible communities. Grants may also be used for programs that install on-grid and off-grid renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements in eligible communities. This notice describes the eligibility and application requirements, the criteria that will be used by RUS to award funding, and how to obtain application materials.

    DATES:

    You may submit completed grant applications on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:

    • Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight, no later than December 14, 2015, or hand delivered to RUS by this deadline, to be eligible under this NOSA. Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for FY 2015 grant funding.

    • Electronic applications must be submitted through Grants.gov no later than midnight December 14, 2015, to be eligible under this notice for FY 2015 grant funding. Late or incomplete electronic applications will not be eligible.

    • Applications will not be accepted by electronic mail.

    Applications will be accepted upon publication of this notice until midnight (EST) of the closing date of December 14, 2015. If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the 2015 Application Guide, required forms and other information on the High Energy Cost Grant Program may be obtained by the following:

    (1) The program Web site (http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants) or

    (2) Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) by searching under Opportunity Number RD- RUS-HECG15; or

    (3) Contacting the RUS Electric Programs at (202) 720-9545 to request paper copies of the Application Guides or other materials.

    Completed applications may be submitted in the following ways:

    • Paper applications are to be submitted to the Rural Utilities Service, Electric Programs, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1560, Room 5165 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1560. Applications should be marked “Attention: High Energy Cost Grant Program.”

    • Applications may be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. Information on how to submit applications electronically is available on the Grants.gov Web site (http://www.grants.gov). Applicants must successfully pre-register with Grants.gov to use the electronic applications option. Application information may be downloaded from Grants.gov without preregistration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robin Meigel, Finance Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, Electric Program, Office of Portfolio Management and Risk Assessment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 1274-S, Washington, DC 20250-1568. Telephone (202) 720-9452, Fax (202) 720-1401, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents of This Notice A. Program Description B. Federal Award Information C. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants i. Applicants ii. Substantially Underserved Trust Area Applicants 2. Cost Sharing and Matching 3. Other i. Eligible Communities a. High Energy Cost Benchmarks (1) Extremely High Average Annual Household Expenditure for Home Energy (2) Extremely High Average per Unit Energy Costs (3) Supporting Energy Cost Data (4) Use of Estimated Home Energy Costs b. SUTA Eligible Communities ii. Eligible Projects iii. Limitations on Grant Awards a. Statutory Limitation on Planning and Administrative Expenses b. Maximum and Minimum Awards c. Multiple Applications d. Ineligible Grant Purposes for High Energy Cost Grants e. Pre-Award Activities During Environmental Review D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Application Package 2. Content and Form of Application Submission i. Pre-Application ii. The Application as a Whole iii. Component Pieces of the Application a. Part A. Completed Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance” b. Part B. Project Summary and Eligibility Statement (1) Applicant Eligibility (2) Community Eligibility (3) Project Eligibility (4) Priority Considerations (5) Contact Information c. Part C. Project Narrative Proposal (1) Table of Contents (2) Executive Summary (3) Project Description (a) Community Eligibility and Assessment of Community Needs (b) Project Design, Technical Feasibility and Responsiveness to Community Needs (c) Applicant Organization and Eligibility (d) Project Management Plan (e) Organizational Experience (f) Key Staff Experience (g) Project Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures (h) Project Reporting Plan (i) Project Budget and Financial Capability (j) Rural Economic Development Initiatives (k) Priority Considerations d. Part D. Additional Required Forms and Certifications e. Part E. Supplementary Materials f. SUTA Application Package Contents g. Application Requirements for Applicants Requesting Reconsideration of an Application Submitted in 2014 h. Number of Copies of Submitted Applications iv. Information That Successful Applicants Must Submit After Notification of Intent To Make a Federal Award 3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM) 4. Submission Dates and Times 5. Intergovernmental Review 6. Funding Restrictions 7. Other Submission Requirements i. Submission of Paper Application Packages ii. Electronic Submission of Application Packages E. Application Review Information 1. Criteria i. Project Design and Technical Merit Criteria a. Assessment of Community Needs b. Project Design, Technical Feasibility and Responsiveness to Community Needs c. Management Plan d. Organizational Experience e. Key Staff Experience f. Project Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures g. Project Reporting Plan h. Project Budget, Financial Feasibility and Matching Contributions i. State, Local, or Tribal Rural Development Initiatives ii. Priority Considerations a. High Poverty Areas b. Rurality (1) Applications From the Fifty States, and Puerto Rico (2) Applications From the Virgin Islands and Pacific Insular Areas c. Renewable Energy Projects d. Extraordinary Conditions or Circumstances (1) Disaster (2) Unserved Energy Needs (3) Imminent Hazard (4) Extreme Economic Hardship e. Substantially Underserved Trust Areas iii. Cost Sharing (Separate Section) 2. Review and Selection Process i. Determining Eligibility ii. Evaluation and Scoring of Eligible Applications iii. Review and Selection of Applications 3. Notice to Applicants for Certain Grant Awards 4. Anticipated Announcement and Federal Award Dates 5. Appeals F. Federal Award Administration 1. Federal Award Notices 2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements i. Environmental Review and Restriction on Certain Activities ii. Other Federal Requirements 3. Reporting G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact H. Other Information 1. Disclosure of Information 2. Civil Rights Overview

    Federal Agency Name: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utilities Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities Program.

    Announcement Type: Initial announcement.

    Funding Opportunity Number: RD-RUS-HECG15.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.859. The CFDA title for this program is “Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities.”

    Dates: Applications must be postmarked and mailed or shipped, or hand delivered to the RUS, or filed with Grants.gov by December 14, 2015.

    A. Program Description

    The USDA through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides grant assistance for energy facilities, including renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements, serving extremely high energy cost communities. This program is authorized by section 19 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (the “RE Act”) (7 U.S.C. 918a). Program regulations are found at 7 CFR part 1709.

    This program was established in 2000 to provide assistance for communities most challenged by extremely high energy costs, defined by statute as average annual residential home energy expenditures that are 275 percent or more of the national average. RUS periodically establishes eligibility benchmarks using the most recent home energy data published by the Energy Information Administration. This notice contains the latest updates to these benchmarks. The benchmarks create a high threshold for community eligibility, but small rural communities from all regions of the United States and qualified insular areas have demonstrated eligibility under prior notices.

    The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance for a broad range of energy facilities, equipment and related activities to offset the impacts of extremely high home energy costs on eligible communities. The grants help communities provide basic energy needs. Grant funds may not be used to pay utility bills or to purchase fuel. No funding is available for education and outreach efforts except those associated with project-funded energy facilities, or upgrades. Grant projects under this program must provide community benefits and not be for the primary benefit of an individual applicant, household, or business.

    With publication of this notice, USDA is making available up to $10 million in new competitive grants awards under the High Energy Cost Grant Program. This notice describes eligibility and application requirements for these grants. Grants will be awarded competitively based on the selection criteria in Part E of this notice.

    Applicants should carefully read this notice and the 2015 Application Guide which contains more detailed information and resources. Applicants must prepare their application packages according to the instructions contained in these documents. The Application Guide is available electronically on the program Web site at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants or through Grants.gov, or by request from the Agency contact for further information listed above.

    Applicants are advised that the application requirements in this notice and the 2015 Application Guide have been substantially revised from those in the 2014 Notice of Funding Availability published June 2, 2014 and 2014 Application Guide. These changes are in response to new uniform guidance on the content of grant opportunity announcements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix I.

    Reconsideration of 2014 Applications. As provided in program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.122, the Administrator has determined to allow eligible applicants under the 2014 notice that were not selected for an award to be considered under this 2015 announcement by submitting a letter requesting reconsideration and along with any supplemental information, a new signed Form SF-424 (“Application for Federal Assistance”) and a signed Form AD-3030 (“Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants”). All requests must be submitted in paper format and mailed, shipped, or hand delivered to the addresses shown in section D.7 by the closing date. The reconsidered applications will be scored as provided in this notice. Additional information and application instructions for reconsideration are set out in section D.2.iii.f of this notice.

    Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (SUTA). This program is subject to the provisions for Substantially Underserved Trust Areas of 7 U.S.C. 936f and regulations at 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D. This notice provides an additional five points in scoring for applications from eligible underserved trust areas that have been accepted for special consideration by the Administrator. Applicants must submit a timely, complete, and eligible application under this notice and a separate letter and supporting material requesting consideration under SUTA provisions.

    Priorities. Under the authority of 7 CFRs 1709.102(b) and 1709.123, this notice establishes several priority scoring criteria to support USDA and RUS policy objectives. Additional points will be awarded for:

    • Projects that provide assistance to USDA High Poverty Areas;

    • Projects that serve small rural communities;

    • Projects that support deployment of renewable energy technologies;

    • Projects that address extraordinary circumstances affecting the eligible high energy cost community such as a disaster, imminent hazard, unserved areas, and other economic hardship, and

    • Projects that serve Substantially Underserved Trust Areas.

    More information is available in section E of this notice.

    B. Federal Award Information

    The RUS Administrator has established the application and selection requirements under this notice pursuant to and consistent with program regulations at 7 CFR part 1709, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, and 2 CFR part 400 which adopts the Uniform Requirements for USDA awards. The total amount of funds available for high energy cost grants under this notice is up to $10 million. The maximum amount of grant assistance that may be requested or awarded for a grant application under this notice is $3,000,000. The minimum amount of assistance for a grant application under this program is $50,000.

    No more than one award will be made per applicant or project. Applicants may submit multiple applications, provided each is for a different project, but only one award per applicant will be approved.

    RUS anticipates making multiple awards under this notice. The number of grants awarded will depend on the number of complete applications submitted, the amount of grant funds requested, the quality and competitiveness of applications, and the availability of funds. There were six grant awards under the 2013 notice and awards ranged from $298,029 to $3,000,000. (See the program Web site (http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants) for summaries of projects previously funded under the program).

    The RUS reserves the right not to award all the funds made available under this notice. The final decision to make an award is at the discretion of the Administrator (7 CFR 1709.121). The Administrator will select finalists for grant awards after consideration of the applications, the rankings, comments, and recommendations of the rating panel, and other pertinent information, including availability of funds. Upon such consideration, the Administrator may elect to offer an award of less than the full amount of grant requested by an applicant. All awards will be in the form of grants. Awardees will have to execute a grant agreement with conditions established by the RUS.

    Grant project performance periods typically range from one to three years. Grant agreements provide for terms of three years. Approvals of any extensions to this term are at the sole discretion of the agency.

    Applicants must provide a complete grant application package with a narrative grant proposal prepared according to the instructions in this notice and Application Guide, and including all required forms and certifications.

    Applicants that submitted an application under the 2014 notice and that were notified that their application was eligible, but did not receive funding may request reconsideration under this notice. Applicants may request reconsideration by letter and submit a statement with additional information and required forms. See section D of this notice for more information.

    Application Review and Award Selections

    All timely submitted and complete applications will be reviewed for eligibility and rated according to the criteria described in this notice. Applications will be ranked in order of their numerical scores on the rating criteria and forwarded to the RUS Administrator. The RUS Administrator is the federal selection official of the competitive awards. The Administrator will review the rankings and the recommendations of the rating panel. The Administrator will select projects in rank order to the extent of available funds.

    Funding for Pre-Award Activities

    Under 7 CFR 1709.10, grant funds may not be used to pay costs of preparing the application package, or for any finders' fees or incentives for persons or entities assisting in the preparation or submission of an application. Applicants are cautioned that they undertake any pre-award project activities at their own risk. A letter advising the applicant that they have been selected for an award is not a binding commitment to provide funding. The award is only final after the Administrator has signed the grant agreement.

    Program regulations provide that RUS will not pay any project construction costs of the project incurred before the date of grant award except as provided in 7 CFR 1709.10. Applicants are also advised that undertaking certain project activities before required environmental review has been completed could result in withdrawal of the selection (7 CFR 1794.15, or its successor).

    C. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants i. Applicants

    Applicant eligibility under this program is established by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 913 and 918a), High Energy Cost Grant Program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.106, and this notice.

    An eligible applicant is any one of the following:

    • A legally-organized for-profit or nonprofit organization such as, but not limited to, a corporation, association, partnership (including a limited liability partnership), cooperative, or trust;

    • A sole proprietorship;

    • A State or local government, or any agency or instrumentality of a State or local government, including a municipal utility or public power authority;

    • An Indian tribe,1 a tribally-owned entity, and or Alaska Native Corporation;

    1 As used in the notice an “Indian Tribe” or “tribal” means a Federally recognized Tribe as defined under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b) to include “* * * any Indian Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.”

    • An individual or group of individuals applying on behalf of unincorporated community associations, and not for the primary benefit of a single household or business (with any award subject to special conditions discussed below); or

    • Any of the above entities located in a U.S. Territory or other area authorized by law to participate in programs of the Rural Utilities Service or under the Rural Electrification Act.

    All applicants must demonstrate the legal authority and capacity to enter into a binding grant agreement with the Federal Government at the time of the award and to carry out the proposed grant funded project according to its terms to be an eligible applicant. The application must include information and/or documentation supporting your eligibility, legal existence, and capacity to enter into a grant agreement.

    Individuals are eligible grant applicants under this program. However, any proposed grant project must provide community benefits and not be for the primary benefit of the individual applicant or and individual household. As a practical matter, because this program addresses community energy needs and to facilitate compliance with Federal grant requirements, individuals will likely find it preferable to establish an independent legal entity, such as a corporation to actually carry out the grant project if they are selected.

    Individuals or other applicants who intend to form a new, separate legal entity to carry out the grant project should indicate their intent in their applications. The new entity must be in existence and legally competent to enter into a grant agreement with the Federal Government under appropriate State and Federal laws before a final grant award can be approved.

    Corporations that have been convicted of a Federal felony within the past 24 months are not eligible applicants. Any corporation that has any unpaid federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance. All corporate applicants must complete Form AD-3030 “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.”

    In addition, under program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.7, an outstanding judgment obtained against an applicant by the United States in a Federal Court (other than in the United States Tax Court), which has been recorded, shall cause the applicant to be ineligible to receive a grant or loan under this part until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied. RUS financial assistance under this part may not be used to satisfy the judgment.

    Before submitting an application, all applicants must have an active registration with current information in the System for Award Management (SAM) (previously the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)) at https:\\www.sam.gov and have a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. For more information on obtaining a DUNS number and SAM registration see section D.3 below.

    ii. Substantially Underserved Trust Area Applicants

    Consistent with section 306F of the RE Act (7 U.S.C. 936f) and regulations concerning SUTA applications at 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D this notice provides priority scoring for any complete and eligible application from an eligible entity that has been accepted by the Administrator for consideration under SUTA provisions. In addition to establishing that it is an eligible applicant under this notice, SUTA applicants must also establish its eligibility under SUTA regulations at 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D.

    The applicant must submit a letter to the RUS Administrator that it is seeking consideration under provisions of 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D and the action that it is requesting. The letter must be accompanied by a copy of the application package submitted in response to this notice. The request must include all information required under the SUTA regulations establishing that its project is for an eligible trust area, documenting its high need for High Energy Cost Grant funds, and identifying the discretionary authorities that it seeks to have applied to its application.

    The Administrator will review the request to determine whether the applicant is eligible to receive consideration under SUTA. RUS will notify the applicant in writing whether (1) the application has been accepted to receive special consideration or (2) the application has not been accepted for consideration under the SUTA regulation. If the request is not granted, the applicant may withdraw its application. If the application is still eligible without SUTA consideration and the applicant does not withdraw the application, RUS will review and score the application along with others received under this notice. For more detailed information on how to apply for a grant under SUTA, please refer to the FY 2015 Application Guide available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants.

    2. Cost Sharing and Matching

    This grant program has no cost sharing or matching funds requirement as a condition of eligibility. However, the RUS will consider other financial resources available to the grant applicant and any voluntary pledge of matching funds or other contributions in assessing the applicant's commitment and financial capacity to complete the proposed project successfully. If a successful applicant proposes to use matching funds or other cost contributions in its project, the grant agreement will include conditions requiring documentation of the availability of the matching funds and actual expenditure of matching funds or cost contributions. RUS may require the applicant to provide additional documentation confirming the availability of any matching contribution offered prior to approval of a project award. If an applicant fails to provide timely documentation of the availability of matching contributions, the RUS may, in its sole discretion, decline to award the project if uncertainties over availability of the match render the project financially unfeasible and impose additional conditions.

    3. Other i. Eligible Communities

    To establish community eligibility, the application must (1) clearly identify and define the geographic area that will be included in the grant project and (2) demonstrate that each of the communities in the proposed area meets one or more of the high energy cost benchmarks. Consult the program regulations at 7 CFR part 1709 and the 2015 Application Guide for additional definitions used in this program.

    All grant projects must benefit communities with extremely high energy costs. The RE Act defines an extremely high energy cost community as one in which “the average residential expenditure for home energy 2 is at least 275 percent of the national average residential expenditure for home energy” 7 U.S.C. 918a. This statutory requirement that community residential expenditures for home energy exceed 275 percent of the national average establishes a very high threshold for eligibility under this program.

    2Home energy means any energy source or fuel used by a household for purposes other than transportation, including electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas (propane), other petroleum products, wood and other biomass fuels, coal, wind, and solar energy. Fuels used for subsistence activities in remote rural areas are also included.

    RUS periodically establishes community eligibility benchmarks based on the latest available information from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) residential energy surveys. Home energy cost benchmarks are calculated for average annual household energy expenditures; total annual expenditures for individual fuels; annual average per unit energy costs for residential energy sources and are set at 275 percent of the relevant national average household energy expenditures. The current benchmarks are shown in Table 1.

    Applicants must demonstrate that proposed communities meet one or more benchmarks to qualify as an eligible beneficiary of a grant under this program. All applications must meet these current eligibility benchmarks for high energy cost. Based on available published information on residential energy costs, RUS anticipates that only those communities with the highest energy costs across the country will qualify.

    The EIA's Residential Energy Consumption and Expenditure Surveys (RECS) and reports provide the baseline national average household energy costs that were used for establishing extremely high energy cost community eligibility criteria for this grant program. The RECS data base and reports provide national and regional information on residential energy use, expenditures, and housing characteristics. EIA published its latest available RECS home energy expenditure survey results in 2012. These estimates of home energy usage and expenditures are based on national surveys conducted in 2009 survey data and are shown in Table 1 as follows:

    Table 1—National Average Annual Household Energy Expenditures and Extremely High Energy Cost Eligibility Benchmarks Effective for Applications Submitted on or After October 13, 2013 Average Annual Household Expenditure Fuel EIA 2009 national annual
  • average household
  • expenditure
  • $ per year RUS extremely high energy
  • cost benchmark
  • (275% of national average)
  • $ per year
    Electricity $1,340 $3,685 Natural Gas 804 2,211 Fuel Oil 1,338 3,680 LPG/Propane 972 2,673 Total Household Energy Use 2,024 5,566 Annual Average Per Unit Residential Energy Costs Fuel EIA 2009 national average unit cost RUS extremely high energy cost benchmark
  • (275% of national average)
  • (units) $ per unit $ per unit Electricity (Kilowatt hours) $.12 $.33 Natural Gas (thousand cubic feet) 12.18 33.50 Fuel Oil (gallons) 2.42 6.68 LPG/Propane (gallons) 2.09 5.76 Kerosene (gallons) 2.72 7.49 Total Household Energy (million Btus) 22.59 62.12 Sources: Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Data—Detailed Tables, available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/.

    Extremely high energy costs in rural and remote communities typically result from a combination of factors including high energy consumption, high per unit energy costs, limited availability of energy sources, extreme climate conditions, and housing characteristics. The relative impacts of these conditions exhibit regional and seasonal diversity. Market factors have created an additional complication in recent years as the prices of the major commercial residential energy sources—electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and LPG/propane— have fluctuated dramatically in some areas.

    The applicant must demonstrate that each community in the grant project's proposed area exceeds one or more of these high energy cost benchmarks to be eligible for a grant under this program.

    a. High Energy Cost Benchmarks.

    The benchmarks measure extremely high energy costs for residential consumers. These benchmarks were calculated using EIA's estimates of national average residential energy expenditures per household and by primary home energy source. The benchmarks recognize the diverse factors that contribute to extremely high home energy costs in rural communities. The benchmarks allow extremely high energy cost communities several alternatives for demonstrating eligibility. Communities may qualify based on: Total annual household energy expenditures; total annual expenditures for commercially-supplied primary home energy sources, i.e., electricity, natural gas, oil, or propane; or average annual per unit home energy costs. By providing alternative measures for demonstrating eligibility, the benchmarks reduce the burden on potential applicants created by the limited public availability of comprehensive data on local community energy consumption and expenditures.

    A community or area will qualify as an extremely high cost energy community if it meets one or more of the energy cost eligibility benchmarks described below.

    (1) Extremely High Average Annual Household Expenditure for Home Energy. The area or community exceeds one or more of the following:

    • Average annual residential electricity expenditure of $3,685 per household;

    • Average annual residential natural gas expenditure of $2,211 per household;

    • Average annual residential expenditure on fuel oil of $3,680 per household;

    • Average annual residential expenditure on propane or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as a primary home energy source of $2,673 per household; or

    • Average annual residential energy expenditure (for all non-transportation uses) of $5,566 per household.

    (2) Extremely High Average per Unit Energy Costs. The average residential per unit cost for major commercial energy sources in the area or community exceeds one or more of the following:

    • Annual average cost per kilowatt hour for residential electricity customers of $0.33 per kilowatt hour (kWh);

    • Annual average residential natural gas price of $33.50 per thousand cubic feet;

    • Annual average residential fuel oil price of $6.68 per gallon;

    • Annual average residential price of propane or LPG as a primary home energy source of $5.76 per gallon;

    • Annual average residential price of Kerosene as a primary home energy source of $7.49 per gallon or

    • Total annual average residential energy cost on a Btu basis of $62.12 per million Btu.3

    3Note: Btu is the abbreviation for British thermal unit, a standard energy measure. A Btu is the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit at or near 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

    (3) Supporting Energy Cost Data. The applicant must include information that demonstrates its eligibility under RUS's high energy cost benchmarks for the communities and areas. The applicant must supply documentation or references for its sources for actual or estimated home energy expenditures or equivalent measures to support eligibility. Generally, the applicant will be expected to use historical residential energy cost or expenditure information for the local energy provider serving the community or area to determine eligibility. Other potential sources of home energy related information include Federal and State agencies, local community energy providers such as electric and natural gas utilities and fuel dealers, and commercial publications. The Application Guide includes a list of EIA resources on residential energy consumption and costs that may be of assistance.

    The grant applicant must establish eligibility for each community in the project's area. To determine eligibility, the applicant must identify each community included in whole or in part within the areas and provide supporting actual or estimated energy expenditure data for each community. The smallest area that may be designated as an area is a 2010 Census block. This minimum size is necessary to enable a determination of population size.

    Potential applicants can compare the benchmark criteria to available information about local energy use and costs to determine their eligibility. Applicants should demonstrate their eligibility using historical energy use and cost information. Where such information is unavailable or does not adequately reflect the actual costs of supporting average home energy use in a local community, RUS will consider estimated commercial energy costs. The Application Guide includes examples of circumstances where estimated energy costs are used.

    EIA does not collect or maintain data on home energy expenditures in sufficient detail to identify specific rural localities as extremely high energy cost communities. Therefore, grant applicants will have to provide information on local community energy costs from other sources to support their applications.

    In many instances, historical community energy cost information can be obtained from a variety of public sources or from local utilities and other energy providers. For example, EIA publishes monthly and annual reports of residential prices by State and by service area for electric utilities and larger natural gas distribution companies. Average residential fuel oil and propane prices are reported regionally and for major cities by government and private publications. Many State agencies also compile and publish information on residential energy costs to support State programs.

    (4) Use of Estimated Home Energy Costs. Where historical community energy cost data are incomplete or lacking or where community-wide data does not accurately reflect the costs of providing home energy services in the area, the applicant may substitute estimates based on engineering standards. The estimates should use available community, local, or regional data on energy expenditures, consumption, housing characteristics and population. Estimates are also appropriate where the area does not presently have centralized commercial energy services at a level that is comparable to other residential customers in the State or region. For example, local commercial energy cost information may not be available where the area is without local electric service because of the high costs of connection. Engineering cost estimates reflecting the incremental costs of extending service could reasonably be used to establish eligibility for areas without grid-connected electric service. Estimates also may be appropriate where historical energy costs do not reflect the cost of providing a necessary upgrade or replacement of energy infrastructure to maintain or extend service that would raise costs above one or more benchmarks. Information to support high energy cost eligibility is subject to independent review by RUS.

    Applications that contain information that is not reasonably based on credible sources of information and sound estimates will be rejected.

    Where appropriate, RUS may consult standard sources to confirm the reasonableness of information and estimates provided by an applicant in determining eligibility, technical feasibility, and adequacy of proposed budget estimates.

    b. SUTA Eligible Communities.

    In addition to meeting extremely high energy cost and other criteria in this notice, applicants requesting consideration under SUTA must also establish their eligible community is in a substantially underserved trust area under the provisions of 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D. Applicants should consult SUTA regulations at 7 CFR part 1709 subpart D for additional information on eligibility and qualifications of “trust lands” and of “substantially underserved trust areas.” Potential SUTA applicants are encouraged to consult with the Agency Contacts listed in this notice in preparation of their requests for consideration.

    The determination of SUTA eligibility will be made by the Administrator before applications are scored and ranked.

    ii. Eligible Projects

    Eligible projects must serve an eligible community and must include only eligible grant purposes. Grant funds may be used to acquire, construct, extend, upgrade, or otherwise improve energy generation, transmission, or distribution facilities serving eligible communities. All energy generation, transmission, and distribution facilities and equipment, used to provide electricity, natural gas, home heating fuels, and other energy service to eligible communities are eligible. Projects providing or improving energy services to eligible communities through on-grid and off-grid renewable energy projects, energy efficiency, and energy conservation projects are eligible. A grant project is eligible if it improves, or maintains energy services, or reduces the costs of providing energy services to eligible communities.

    Funds may cover up to the full costs of any eligible projects subject to the statutory condition that no more than 4 percent of grant funds may be used for the planning and administrative expenses of the grantee.

    The project must serve communities that meet the extremely high energy cost eligibility requirements described in this notice. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will benefit the eligible communities. Projects that primarily benefit a single household or business are not eligible. Additional information and examples of eligible project activities are contained in the 2015 Application Guide.

    The program regulations at 7 CFR part 1709 provide more detail on allowable use of grant funds, limitations on grant funds, and ineligible grant purposes. Grant funds may not be used to refinance or repay the applicant's outstanding loans or loan guarantees under the RE Act.

    Each grant applicant must demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of its proposed project. Activities or equipment that would commonly be considered as research, development, or demonstration, or commercialization activities are not eligible. Projects for deploying new energy technologies that are not in established commercial use will not be considered as technologically feasible projects and would, thus, be ineligible grant purposes. However, grant funds may be used for projects that involve the innovative use or adaptation of energy-related technologies that have been commercially proven. RUS, in its sole discretion, will determine if a project consists of ineligible research, development, demonstration, or commercialization activities or relies on unproven technology, and that determination shall be final.

    iii. Limitations on Grant Awards

    a. Statutory Limitation on Planning and Administrative Expenses.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the RE Act provides that no more than 4 percent of the grant funds for any project may be used for planning and administrative expenses of the grantee not directly related to delivery of the project. RUS will not make awards for any such expenses exceeding 4 percent of grant funds. Because of this limitation, applicants must detail any indirect costs.

    b. Maximum and Minimum Awards.

    For High Energy Cost Grants, the maximum amount of grant assistance that will be considered for funding per grant application under this notice is $3,000,000. The minimum amount of assistance for a competitive grant application under this program is $50,000.

    c. Multiple Applications.

    Eligible applicants must include only one project per application, but the project can include many locations. Applicants may submit applications for multiple projects. For high energy cost grants, no more than $3 million in grant funds will be awarded per project application. An applicant will only be awarded funding for one project under this notice. The award will be made to the highest ranked application submitted; other applications from the same applicant or project will remain unfunded under this notice.

    d. Ineligible Grant Purposes for High Energy Cost Grants.

    Grant funds cannot be used for: Preparation of the grant application, fuel purchases, routine maintenance or other operating costs, and purchase of equipment, structures, or real estate not directly associated with provision of residential energy services. In general, grant funds may not be used to support projects that primarily benefit areas outside of eligible communities. However, grant funds may be used to finance an eligible community's proportionate share of a larger energy project.

    Consistent with USDA policy and program regulations, grant funds awarded under this program generally cannot be used to replace other USDA assistance or to refinance or repay outstanding loans under the RE Act. Grant funds may, however, be used in combination with other USDA assistance programs including electric loans. Grants may be applied toward grantee contributions under other USDA programs depending on the specific terms of those programs. For example, an applicant may propose to use grant funds to offset the costs of electric system improvements in extremely high cost areas by increasing the utility's contribution for line extensions or system expansions to its distribution system financed in whole or part by an electric loan under the RE Act. An applicant may propose to finance a portion of an energy project for an extremely high energy cost community through this grant program and secure the remaining project costs through a loan or loan guarantee from RUS or other grant sources. The determination of whether a project will be completed in this manner will be made solely by the Administrator.

    e. Pre-award Activities during Environmental Review.

    RUS may refuse to provide an award where the selected applicant has taken actions in violation of restrictions on certain project activities prior to completion of pre-award environmental review. See section F.2.ii of this notice and 7 CFR 1794.15, or its successor.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    All applications must be prepared and submitted in compliance with this notice and the 2015 Application Guide. The Application Guide contains additional information on the grant programs, sources of information for use in preparing applications, examples of eligible projects, and copies of the required application forms.

    1. Address To Request Application Package

    The FY 2015 Application Guide, copies of required forms, and other information on the High Energy Cost Grant Program are available from these sources:

    a. The Internet at the program Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants;

    b. Through Grants.gov (http://www.Grants.gov) under CFDA No. 10.859);

    c. By request from Robin Meigel, Finance Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, Electric Program, Office of Portfolio Management and Risk Assessment, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 1274-S, Washington, DC 20250-1568. Telephone (202) 720-9452, Fax (202) 720-1401, email: [email protected].

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission

    Applicants must follow the directions in this notice and the 2015 Application Guide in preparing and submitting their application packages.

    i. Pre-Application

    This program does not require or accept pre-applications. This program is not subject to E.O. 12372 “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” as implemented by USDA.

    ii. The Application as a Whole

    Application packages must be prepared consistent with the requirements of this notice, the 2015 Application Guide and program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.117. Applicants are encouraged to consult the recently updated Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements For Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200 for additional requirements applicable to grants under this program. Application packages that do not comply with the eligibility and content provisions of this notice will be rejected. As used in this notice “narrative” means a written statement, description or other written material prepared by the applicant, for which no form exists.

    Format. The completed application package should be assembled in the order specified in section D.2.iii below with all pages numbered sequentially or by section. Application narratives and attachments should be formatted for 81/2 by 11 inch paper (letter size) with 1 inch margins. Preferred type faces are Times New Roman12, Calibri 11, Arial 11, Verdana 10 or Courier 10. Narratives may be single or double spaced. It is strongly recommended that Project Narratives be no longer than about 30 pages in length or less (exclusive of required forms and Project Summary) with up to 10 pages of attachments. Paper application packages will be scanned and should be printed single-sided on white letter size paper. Electronic applications must follow formatting directions, including acceptable file attachment types, specified on Grants.gov. Failure to follow these instructions may result in rejection of the application.

    Number of copies. A complete application submission package consists of one original application with original signatures on all forms and certifications and two copies.

    iii. Component Pieces of the Application

    The completed application consists of the following sections and forms. Narrative sections should be formatted as indicated above and assembled in the sequence specified. Table 2 lists the required content and form of a complete application. Applicants may use this table to assure that their applications are complete and assembled in order.

    Table 2—Required Content and Form of Application Package Component pieces of the application.
  • Complete Applications must include all listed sections, forms, and certifications in the order shown in this table.
  • Part A. Completed Form SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance.” Part B, Project Summary and Eligibility Statement (up to 3 pages total). Part C. Project Narrative Proposal. (1) Table of Contents. (2) Executive Summary (1 page). (3) Project Description (up to about 30 pages). (a) Community Eligibility and Assessment of Community Needs. (b) Project Design, Technical Feasibility and Responsiveness to Community Needs. (c) Applicant Organization and Eligibility. (d) Project Management Plan. (e) Organizational Experience. (f) Key Staff Experience. (g) Project Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures. (h) Project Reporting Plan. (i) Project Budget and Financial Capability, accompanied by SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs,” or SF-424C “Budget Information—Construction Programs,” as applicable. (j) Rural Economic Development Initiatives. (k) Priority Considerations. Part D. Additional Required Forms and Certifications. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs” or Form SF-424D, “Assurances—Construction Programs.” Form SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form AD-3030 “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants” (Applications from Corporations only). Rural Utilities Service “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matter—Primary Covered Transactions.” RUS Environmental Questionnaire. Part E. Supplementary Materials (up to 10 pages).

    a. Part A. Completed Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.”

    This form must be signed by a person authorized to submit the proposal on behalf of the applicant. Note: All applicants, except individuals, must include a DUNS number on the SF-424 to be considered complete. See section D.3 for information on obtaining a DUNS Number. Copies of this form are available through the RUS's Web site (http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants) or through Grants.gov, or by request from the Agency contact listed in section D.1 above.

    b. Part B, Project Summary and Eligibility Statement.

    The Project Summary and Eligibility Statement is a short narrative that establishes the application's eligibility. It describes the applicant, the eligible high energy cost community, the proposed project, and any requested priority considerations. The Project Summary should be no longer than three (3) pages.

    In Part B applicants must provide a brief summary of the project proposal. The project must be described in sufficient detail to establish that it is an eligible project under the High Energy Cost Grant Program, program regulations (7 CFR part 1709) and this notice. Applicants should take great care in preparing this section to include all elements listed below. RUS will make an initial determination of eligibility and whether to accept the application for further review and scoring based on the contents of this project summary. Application packages that do not meet eligibility requirements will be rejected.

    Part B will not be scored so applicants must also include any information on eligibility or priority scoring in the full project narrative proposal.

    Part B must include the following information.

    (1) Applicant Eligibility.

    This section of Part B must briefly describe the applicant, its capabilities, and provides information demonstrating that the applicant is an eligible entity under program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.106 and this notice. Applicants must also be free of any debarment or other restriction on their ability to contract with the Federal government as identified in section C.1.a of this notice.

    (2) Community Eligibility.

    This summary must describe the eligible community or communities to be served by the project including name, location, and population based on 2010 Census. It must also provide the name and population of the local government division (e.g., city, town or county for unincorporated areas) where the project is located. It must specifically identify the average community residential energy costs that exceed one or more of the benchmark criteria for extremely high energy costs as described in this notice. Local energy providers and sources of high energy cost data and estimates should be clearly identified. The Application Guide includes additional information and sources that the applicant may find useful in establishing community eligibility.

    (3) Project Eligibility.

    This section provides a brief overview of the project including the project title, total project costs, the amount of grant funds requested, amount and source of matching contributions, major project goals and tasks, and the location of project activities and facilities to be supported with grant funds. It should indicate the proposed project duration. It must state how the grant project will provide benefits to the eligible community and offset or reduce the target community's extremely high energy costs. The summary should briefly identify any state or tribal rural development initiative that the project supports.

    (4) Priority Considerations.

    Applicants should indicate all Priority Considerations for which they are seeking additional points in project scoring. Priority points to be awarded under this notice are set forth in section E.1.

    (5) Contact Information.

    The project summary should list the Applicant's name, address, telephone number, fax, and email address and contact person for the application. Include the contact person's address, telephone number, fax and email address if different from the applicant.

    c. Part C. Project Narrative Proposal.

    The project narrative proposal describes in detail the proposed grant project, the project benefits, and the proposed budget. Part C follows sequentially after Parts A and B in assembling the package and contents should be assembled and paginated in the order described below.

    In preparing the project narrative proposal, Applicants must address individually and in narrative form each of the proposal evaluation and selection criteria contained in section E.1 of this notice. The project narrative proposal of eligible applications will be scored competitively and the results used to rank applications for awards.

    Format and length. The narrative proposal should be formatted according to the instructions in section D.2.ii. Applicants are strongly encouraged to keep the narrative proposal to no longer than approximately 30 pages, exclusive of required forms. Successful application narratives have been shorter in length. Applicants may use the Supplementary Materials section to include up to ten (10) pages of letters of support and other information for reviewers. Letters from Members of Congress and senior State government officials will not count against this page limit.

    The project narrative proposal includes the following sections assembled in the order indicated.

    (1) Table of Contents.

    Part C of the application package must include a Table of Contents immediately before the Executive Summary. The Table of Contents must provide page numbers for all sections, forms, and supplemental materials. The Table of Contents will help reviewers assure that all submitted materials are included in the application package and in correct, intended order. This section will not be scored or counted against any suggested page limits.

    (2) Executive Summary.

    The Executive Summary is a one page introduction to the project that briefly identifies the applicant, project title, amount of grant funds requested, eligible communities, the activities and facilities to be supported, and how the grant project will benefit the community and offset or reduce the community's extremely high energy costs. Any priority considerations requested should be listed. The Executive Summary will be used to prepare any project descriptions or announcements and should list a key contact person for the application with telephone and fax numbers, mailing address and email address. The Executive Summary is a required component of the application (7 CFR 1709.117(b)(1)), but will not be scored. The Executive Summary immediately follows the Table of Contents.

    (3) Project Description.

    The narrative project description should be no longer than about 30 pages in total and should be prepared using the formatting instructions above in section D.2.ii.

    (a) Community Eligibility and Assessment of Community Needs.

    The Applicant must describe the community or communities to be served by the grant and provide supporting information establishing eligibility. The narrative must show that the proposed grant project's target area or areas are located in one or more communities where the average annual residential energy costs exceed one or more of the benchmark criteria for extremely high energy costs as described in section C3 and Table 1 of this notice. The narrative must clearly identify the location and population of the areas to be aided by the grant project and their energy costs. It must also include the population of the local government division in which each community is located. Local energy providers and sources of high energy cost data and estimates must be clearly identified. Neither the applicant nor the project must be physically located in the extremely high energy cost community, but the funded project must serve an eligible community.

    The population estimates should be based on the 2010 Census available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Additional information and exhibits supporting eligibility and community energy sources may be obtained from the U.S. Census, the Energy Information Administration, other Federal and State agencies, or private sources. The Application Guide provides additional information and sources that are useful in establishing community eligibility.

    The Applicant must identify and analyze the major challenges that the eligible community faces and how their extremely high energy costs impair their ability to meet these needs or adversely affect other aspects of community wellbeing. The Applicant may, for example, describe how socioeconomic, environmental, or public policy considerations may affect the community's ability to meet its energy needs or influence the choices that they may make.

    The Applicant must describe how the proposed grant project is responsive to the identified community challenges or needs by, for example, providing or improving critical energy infrastructure or offsetting or reducing the impacts of high energy costs on community residents through energy efficiency improvements. In providing community information, Applicants should bear in mind that they are presenting a case that their project community should be ranked higher than competing similar projects.

    In analyzing community needs, Applicants should address any community characteristics or extraordinary conditions that reviewers should consider in weighing need for assistance. In particular, the narrative should address any circumstances that may qualify the application for one or more of the priority scoring considerations established in section E of this notice. Priority considerations include high poverty areas, rurality, renewable energy, extraordinary conditions or circumstances, and Substantially Underserved Trust Areas.

    (b) Project Design, Technical Feasibility and Responsiveness to Community Needs.

    The narrative must describe the proposed project in sufficient detail to establish that it is an eligible project under program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.109 to 1709.111, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, and this notice.

    The applicant must describe the project design, construction, materials, equipment, and associated activities in sufficient detail to support a conclusion by reviewers of the project's eligibility and technical feasibility as required by program regulations 7 CFR 1709. 117 and this notice. Proposed projects involving construction, repair, replacement, or improvement of electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities must generally be consistent with the standards and requirements for projects financed with loans and loan guarantees under the RE Act as set forth in RUS's Electric Programs Regulations and Bulletins and may reference these requirements.

    The Applicant's proposed scope of work must include major tasks to be performed, any services to be provided directly to beneficiaries, a proposed timeline for completing each task; and an estimate of the overall project duration.

    The application must identify the location of the project target area with the eligible extremely high energy cost communities to be served, and the locations, if any, outside of these areas where project funded activities will be conducted.

    In describing the project plan and schedule, applicants must specifically identify any regulatory and other approvals required by Federal, State, local, or tribal agencies, or by private entities (as a condition of financing), that are necessary to carry out the proposed grant project. The Applicant must provide an estimated schedule for obtaining the necessary approvals. Prior to the obligation of any funds for the selected proposals, applicants will be required to gather specific information in order for RUS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), for which the provision of funding is considered an undertaking subject to review. The environmental information that must be supplied by the applicant can be found in the RUS Environmental Questionnaire in the application materials.

    Finally, the Applicant must address how the project responds to the community needs identified in its assessment and analysis of community needs above.

    (c) Applicant Organization and Eligibility.

    In this section the applicant must describe its organizational structure and capacity to carry out the project according to its proposed terms and consistent with Federal requirements. The Applicant must establish that it is an eligible applicant under this program as provided in section C.1.a above. Additionally, the Applicant must establish that it and its project are located in the United States, its territories, or an eligible insular area.

    The narrative and supporting documentation must describe the applicant entity and establish its eligibility consistent with regulations at 7 CFR part 1709 and this notice. The description must include the entity's organizational structure, ownership, when it was established, where it operates, sources of funding, whether it is regulated, and identify any subsidiaries, affiliates, or parent entities. The applicant must describe its financial management system that it will use for grant activities. Finally, the applicant must demonstrate that it has or will have the legal authority to enter into a financial assistance relationship with the Federal Government. Examples of supporting evidence of applicant's legal existence and eligibility include: A reference to or copy of the relevant statute, regulation, executive order, or legal opinion authorizing a State, local, or tribal government program, articles of incorporation or certificates of incorporation or good standing for corporate applicants, partnership or trust agreements, and board resolutions. These documents will not be counted towards any page limitation and should be included at the end of the Application Package. Applicants must also be free of any debarment or other restriction on their ability to contract with the Federal Government or receive a Federal grant.

    (d) Project Management Plan.

    This section must provide a narrative describing the applicant's management structure, capabilities, and project performance plans. The application must include a description of the entity's organizational structure, method of funding, legal authority, key executives, project management experience, and financial management systems. Financial statements and other supporting documentation about applicant eligibility, experience, financial and legal capacity to carry out the project may be referenced here.

    The applicant must describe how and by whom the project will be managed during construction and all phases of operation. The description must include the applicant's project management structure, key project personnel, and the degree to which applicant's full time employees, affiliated entities or contractors will be used to complete project tasks and provide any services to beneficiaries. The applicant must provide the identities, legal relationships, qualifications and experience of those persons that will perform project management functions. If the applicant proposes to use equipment or design, construction and other services from non-affiliated entities, the application must describe how it plans to contract for such equipment or services.

    The applicant must describe the identities, relationship, qualifications, and experience of these affiliated and contracted entities. The experience and capabilities of these affiliated and/or contracted entities will be reviewed by the rating panel.

    Applicants are encouraged to review the financial management requirements for Federal grantees in 7 CFR part 1709 and government-wide financial assistance regulations at 2 CFR part 200, and to address their ability to comply with these requirements in their applications.

    Overall, this section should provide information that will support a finding that the overall combination of management experience, financial management capabilities, resources and project structure will enable successful completion of the project.

    (e) Organizational Experience.

    This subsection should include a detailed description of the applicant's relevant experience and that of any other organization that will carry out the proposed projects. Information should be included on past projects, success rates, long-term results, and community and individual consumer benefits. If the applicant has received any prior High Energy Cost Grants or other Federal funding, a detailed description of these awards and past performance is required in this section.

    (f) Key Staff Experience.

    The application must identify all key project staff and provide brief experience and qualifications descriptions. If the applicant proposes to use affiliated entities, contractors, or subcontractors to provide services funded under the grant, the applicant must describe the identities, relationship, qualifications, and experience of these affiliated entities. The rating panel will consider the experience and capabilities of these entities in scoring the proposal. If the application is selected for funding, key personnel provisions may be included in the grant agreement as a condition of the award.

    (g) Project Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures.

    Federal grant regulations provide that each grant award must include establishment of performance goals defined as “a target level of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be compared” (2 CFR 200.76. See also 2 CFRs 200.301, and 200.308 and 7 CFR1709.117).

    In this section the applicant must explain how the project addresses the energy needs of the community and must clearly identify appropriate proposed measures of project performance and success. Measures of performance might include percent completion of construction projects over the proposed schedule. Objectives or measures of benefits might include, for example, expected reductions in home or community energy costs, avoided cost increases, enhanced reliability, or economic or social benefits from improvements in energy services available to the community. The applicant should include quantitative estimates of cost or energy savings and other benefits. The applicant should provide documentation or references to support its projections of cost-effectiveness savings and improved services.

    (h) Project Reporting Plan.

    The applicant must include a proposed progress reporting plan describing how it plans to measure, monitor, and report on the effectiveness of the project in delivering its projected benefits and on any significant developments or challenges that arise during project performance. RUS will use these proposed performance measures and reporting plans to establish the performance measures incorporated in the grant agreement in the event the proposal is selected for an award. These suggested performance criteria are not binding on the Agency.

    (i) Project Budget and Financial Capability.

    In this subsection the applicant must present its proposed project budget for the full term of the project and also provide information about its own financial capability to support the project and manage it in compliance with requirements for Federal assistance.

    The budget narrative must provide a detailed breakdown of all estimated costs and allocate these costs among the listed tasks in the work plan. The narrative and budget exhibits and forms must itemize and explain major proposed project cost components such as, but not limited to, the expected costs of design and engineering and other professional services, personnel costs (salaries/wages and fringe benefits), equipment, materials, property acquisition, travel (if any), and other direct costs, and proposed recovery of indirect costs, if any. The budget must document that planned administrative and other expenses of the project sponsor that are not directly related to performance of the grant will not total more than 4 percent of grant funds.

    The applicant must explain the basis for any cost estimates. A pro forma operating budget for the three years of operations must be included as an exhibit in this section.

    The applicant must clearly identify the source and amount of any other Federal or non-Federal contributions of funds or services that will be used to support the proposed project, including any program income.

    The detailed budget narrative must be accompanied by SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs,” or SF-424C “Budget Information—Construction Programs,” as applicable. All applicants that submit applications through Grants.gov must use SF-424A.

    Consistent with the requirements of 2 CFR 200.205, the RUS must review the financial risk posed by applicants. In support of this review, applicants must provide additional narrative regarding the financial capability of their organization including, for example:

    (1) Financial stability;

    (2) Quality of management systems and ability to meet the management standards prescribed under Federal grant regulations in 2 CFR part 200;

    (3) History of performance in managing any other Federal awards, including timeliness of compliance with applicable reporting requirements, conformance to the terms and conditions of previous Federal awards, and if applicable, the extent to which any previously awarded amounts will be expended prior to future awards;

    (4) Reports and findings from audits performed for other Federal assistance under 2 CFR part 200, subpart F—Audit Requirements or the reports and findings of any other available audits; and/or

    (5) Any contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal programs or activities.

    Applicants may cross reference relevant discussions elsewhere in the application in support of their financial stability and financial management capability.

    (j) Rural Economic Development Initiatives.

    The Applicant must address how the project will support rural economic development in the target area. The narrative must describe whether and how the proposed project will support any rural economic development initiatives funded by, or carried out in cooperation with, a State or local agency, or an Indian Tribe as required by 7 CFR 1709.117(b)(11). If the project supports a rural development initiative, the application should include confirming documentation from the appropriate rural development agency. The application must identify the extent to which its proposed project performance is dependent upon or tied to other rural development initiatives, funding, or approvals. If the project is independent of and not coordinated with a State or Tribal rural development initiative, the applicant should clearly indicate this. Project narratives that do not address this requirement will receive zero points under this evaluation criterion.

    (k) Priority Considerations.

    The Administrator has approved certain priority considerations in scoring and ranking applications consistent with program regulations at 7 CFR 1709.123. These priority scoring considerations and points to be awarded are described in Section E of this notice. In order to assure that applicants receive all of the priority points for which they are eligible, this section should identify each priority consideration that the Applicant is requesting and provide a brief statement of the circumstances that make them eligible for the priority criterion. Applicants may cross reference more detailed information elsewhere in the application package. Applicants should carefully read section E on scoring priority considerations before writing this section. Priority will be awarded for the following:

    • High Poverty Communities;

    • Rurality (population);

    • Renewable Energy Projects;

    • Extraordinary conditions/circumstances such as a disaster, imminent hazard, unserved areas, severe economic hardship for energy provider or community, or other circumstance; and

    • Substantially Underserved Trust Areas.

    d. Part D. Additional Required Forms and Certifications.

    In order to establish compliance with other Federal requirements for financial assistance programs, the applicant must execute and submit as parts of the application package the following forms and certifications:

    • SF 424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs” or SF 424D, “Assurances—Construction Programs” (as applicable). All applicants applying through Grants.gov must use form SF 424B.

    • SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” All applicants must file this disclosure form (2 CFR 418.110). The applicant should complete name and address information. If no expenditure indicate $0, “none,” or “not applicable” in the reporting section.

    • Form AD-3030 “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants” (for corporate applicants only).

    • Rural Utilities Service “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matter—Primary Covered Transactions”.

    • High Energy Cost Grant Program RUS Environmental Questionnaire. The RUS environmental questionnaire solicits information about project characteristics and site-specific conditions that may involve environmental, historic preservation, and other resources. The information will be used by RUS's environmental staff to determine what, if any, additional environmental impact analyses may be necessary before a final grant award may be approved. A copy of the environmental questionnaire and instructions for completion are included in the Application Guide and may be downloaded from RUS's Web site or under funding opportunity announcement RD-RUS-HECG15 at Grants.gov.

    e. Part E. Supplementary Materials (Up to 10 pages).

    Applicants may include additional information for reviewers such as letters of support and any other supplementary materials not included as exhibits in the project narrative that support eligibility, or priority considerations. Letters from Congress and senior State Officials will not be counted against the page limitation.

    f. SUTA Application Package Contents.

    Application contents for entities that have requested SUTA consideration are identical to those for other applicants. The request for SUTA consideration is separate from the application package to be reviewed by the rating panel. See discussion of SUTA above in section C and SUTA regulations at 7 CFR 1700.108 for additional information on what is required in the separate SUTA request.

    g. Application Requirements for Applicants Requesting Reconsideration of an Application Submitted in 2014.

    The Administrator has determined to use the discretion provided under agency regulations at 7 CFR 1709.122 to consider under this notice unfunded applications submitted in response to the 2014 funding opportunity notice. The application contents and scoring criteria are sufficiently alike, so that reviewers can find all required information in the application package and newly submitted information. Allowing reconsideration reduces burdens on eligible applicant in submitting a new application and on the agency in reviewing applications for eligibility and completeness.

    Applicants that submitted applications in response to the notice published on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31283) and that later were notified by RUS that the application was determined to be eligible and complete but was not selected for an award may request reconsideration of their applications under this notice. To request reconsideration, the applicant must submit a brief signed letter requesting reconsideration and identifying any additional information that they wish to be considered by the rating panel. The Applicant may also submit up to 10 pages of new explanatory or supplementary material to be attached to its application. This may include, for example, updated project budgets or schedules. The request must be accompanied by a new original, signed Standard Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance” and a signed Form AD-3030 “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants” (for corporate applicants only).

    The required application package for reconsideration will consist of the new signed SF-424, the letter requesting reconsideration, additional information or supporting materials, plus the original application package submitted in 2014 maintained in Agency files. The Agency will add the newly submitted material to the existing application package for review by the rating panel. You do not need to send a copy of the 2014 application package. Required forms are available on our Web site (http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants) and in the 2015 Application Guide.

    Because this abbreviated application reconsideration package differs from the general application package for first time applicants, all requests for reconsideration must be submitted in paper form and sent to RUS at the addresses for paper applications indicated in section D.7 on or before the application deadline. RUS will not accept requests for reconsideration by email or fax. Requests for reconsideration cannot be submitted through Grants.gov. Applicants also have the option of submitting an entirely new 2015 application package under the requirements of this notice.

    h. Number of Copies of Submitted Applications.

    (1) Paper application packages submitted to RUS must include the original signed application and two (2) copies.

    (2) Grant applications may be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. Please carefully read the FY 2015 Application Guide and Special Instructions for Grants.gov applications for additional guidance on submitting an electronic application. Only one submission through Grants.gov is required.

    iv. Information That Successful Applicants Must Submit After Notification of Intent To Make a Federal Award

    In addition to the information required to be submitted in the application package, RUS may request that successful grant applicants provide additional information, analyses, forms and certifications before the grant agreement is signed and funds are obligated. These may include additional information and analyses for any environmental reviews and clearances under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h), other statutes, and USDA regulations. The successful applicant may be required to submit additional certifications required under USDA and Government-wide assistance regulations. RUS will advise the applicant in writing of any additional information required.

    3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

    The applicant for a grant must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as part of an application. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for the DUNS number. The applicant can obtain a DUNS number free of charge by calling Dun and Bradstreet. Please see http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number.

    Before submitting an application, the applicant must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly Central Contractor Registry (CCR)). Applicants must register for the SAM at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. SAM registration must remain active with current information at all times while RUS is considering an application or while a Federal grant award is active. To maintain SAM registration the applicant must review and update the information in the SAM database annually from the date of initial registration or from the date of the last update. The applicant must ensure that the information in the database is current, accurate, and complete.

    4. Submission Dates and Times

    Applicants may submit applications on paper directly to the Agency or electronically through Grants.gov.

    a. Paper grant applications, including requests for reconsideration and SUTA applications, must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than December 14, 2015 to be eligible for FY 2015 grant funding. RUS will begin accepting applications on the date of publication of this notice. RUS will accept for review all applications postmarked or delivered by this deadline.

    For the purposes of determining the timeliness of an application, RUS will accept the following as valid postmarks: The date stamped by the U.S. Postal Service on the outside of the package containing the application delivered by U.S. Mail; the date the package was received by a commercial delivery service as evidenced by the delivery label; the date received via hand delivery to the RUS headquarters. Late applications will not be considered and will be rejected.

    RUS will not provide notifications acknowledging receipt of paper applications. Applicants should retain proof of mailing or shipping.

    b. Electronic grant applications must be filed with Grants.gov on or before December 14, 2015 to be eligible for FY 2015 funding. RUS uses the date and time an electronic application was posted for submission to Grants.gov to determine timeliness of application submittal. Applications received by Grants.gov after the deadline will not be eligible for FY 2015 grant funding and will be rejected.

    Applicants are encouraged to file electronic applications in advance of the deadline. Applicants encountering difficulty filing applications electronically must contact Grants.gov for assistance. Grants.gov will generate a receipt for application filing and for transmittal to USDA. RUS will not issue a separate acknowledgement of receipt. Acceptance of an application by Grants.gov or by the USDA grants warehouse does not constitute acceptance as an eligible and complete application by RUS.

    c. If the submission deadline falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.

    5. Intergovernmental Review

    The High Energy Cost Grant Program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” as implemented by USDA in 2 CFR part 415. Applications do not have to be submitted to any State agencies for review before submittal.

    6. Funding Restrictions

    Grant awards and use of High Energy Cost Grant program are subject to certain limitations established by Federal statutes, regulations, and policies. These restrictions may preclude awards or reimbursements to certain applicants or for certain proposed activities.

    Grant funds cannot be used for:

    (1) Preparation of the grant application; payment of any finder's fees or incentives for assisting in the preparation or submission of an application;

    (2) Purchases of fuel or payment of utility bills;

    (3) Payment of applicant's planning and administrative costs that are unrelated to the grant project and that exceed 4 percent of each grant award;

    (4) Routine maintenance or other operating costs;

    (5) Purchase of equipment, structures, or real estate not directly associated with provision of residential energy services;

    (6) Project construction costs incurred prior to the date of the grant award, except as provided in 7 CFR 1709.11(d);

    (7) Costs of project development and feasibility analyses exceeding 10 percent of total project costs;

    (8) Projects that primarily or only consist of educational, outreach, and audit or assessment activities and do not include a substantial investment in physical infrastructure or energy saving improvements;

    (9) Projects that primarily benefit a single household or business;

    (10) Projects that primarily benefit areas outside of eligible communities;

    (11) Research, development, demonstration, or commercialization activities;

    (12) Refinancing or repayment of the applicant's outstanding loans or loan guarantees under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.);

    (13) Funding of political activities;

    (14) Payment of any judgment or debt owed to the United States; or

    (15) Providing any share or benefit to a member of Congress except as provided in 7 CFR 1709.20.

    In addition to the above, RUS may refuse to provide an award or reimbursement where the selected applicant has taken actions in violation of restrictions on certain project activities prior to completion of pre-award environmental review. See section F.2.a of this notice and 7 CFR 1794.15, or its successor.

    7. Other Submission Requirements

    Grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically. A completed paper application package must contain all required parts in the order indicated in the above section D.2.iii on “Content and Form of Application Submission” and Table 2. The paper application package must include one original application with original signatures on all forms and certifications and two complete copies.

    Format for paper applications and narratives. The completed paper application package should be assembled in the order specified in section D.2.iii and Table 2 with all pages numbered sequentially or by section. Application narratives and attachments should be formatted for 81/2 by 11 inch paper (letter size) with 1 inch margins for ease of copying or scanning. Preferred type faces are Times New Roman 12, Calibri 11, Arial 11, Verdana 10, or Courier 10. Narratives may be single or double spaced. It is strongly recommended that Project Narratives be no longer than about 30 pages in length or less (exclusive of required forms Project Summary, Table of Contents and Executive Summary) with up to 10 pages of attachments, excluding letters from Members of Congress, and documents establishing legal existence and authority to enter a grant agreement with the Federal Government. Paper application packages will be scanned and should be printed single-sided on white letter size paper. Failure to follow these instructions may result in rejection of the application.

    Format of Electronic applications. Applicants must follow formatting directions, including acceptable file attachment types specified on Grants.gov. Failure to follow the special instructions for electronic applications and Grants.gov guidance for attachments may result in an unreadable or incomplete application which will be rejected.

    i. Submission of Paper Application Packages

    Completed paper applications, including requests for reconsideration and SUTA requests, must be delivered to the RUS headquarters in Washington, DC, using United States Mail, overnight delivery service, or by hand to the following address: Assistant Administrator, Electric Programs, Rural Utilities Service United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1560, Room 5165 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1560. Applications should be marked “Attention: High Energy Cost Community Grant Program.”

    Applicants are advised that regular mail deliveries to Federal Agencies, especially of oversized packages and envelopes, are frequently delayed by increased security screening requirements that include irradiation which may damage contents. Applicants may wish to consider using Express Mail or a commercial overnight delivery service instead of regular mail. Applicants wishing to hand deliver or use courier services for delivery should contact an RUS representative in advance to arrange for building access. If an applicant wishes to submit such materials, they should contact the Agency Contact listed in section D.1 above for additional information.

    ii. Electronic Submission of Application Packages

    a. RUS will not accept applications via fax or electronic mail.

    b. Electronic applications must be submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov portal at http://www.grants.gov/.

    c. How to use Grants.gov. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software.

    Electronic Application materials for the High Energy Cost Grant notice can be found by searching under Funding Opportunity Number: RD-RUS-HECG15 or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 10.859. In addition to the Grants.gov mandatory forms, applicants must download, complete, and attach specific USDA and High Energy Cost Grant instructions, forms, and certifications to submit a complete electronic application package. Additional forms to be downloaded, completed, and uploaded to the Grants.gov application package include: The RUS “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matter—Primary Covered Transactions,” Form AD-3030 “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants” (for corporate applicants only), and the RUS Environmental Questionnaire. Electronic Applications that do not contain these required forms will be rejected as incomplete.

    d. Credentials and Authorizations for Electronic Applications.

    1. System for Award Management. All applicants must register with the System for Award Management. Submitting an application through Grants.gov requires that your organization list in the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly Central Contractor Registry, CCR). The Agency strongly recommends that you obtain your organization's DUNS number and SAM listing well in advance of the deadline specified in this notice. See https:\\www.sam.gov for more information on SAM and to register.

    2. Credentialing and authorization of applicants. Grants.gov will also require some credentialing and online authentication procedures before you can submit an application. These procedures may take several business days to complete, further emphasizing the need for early action by applicants to complete the sign-up, credentialing and authorization procedures at Grants.gov before you submit an application at that Web site.

    3. Some or all of the SAM and Grants.gov registration, credentialing and authorizations require updates. If you have previously registered at Grants.gov to submit applications electronically, please ensure that your registration, credentialing and authorizations are up to date well in advance of the grant application deadline.

    e. Difficulties in submitting electronic applications.

    RUS encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadlines.

    If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.

    In case of difficulty filing electronically that cannot be resolved, applicants may download application materials and complete forms online through Grants.gov without completing the registration requirements. Application materials prepared online may be printed and submitted in paper to RUS as detailed above.

    E. Application Review Information

    This section describes the process and application review criteria that the RUS will use to evaluate the eligibility and merit of the applications packages submitted. This notice establishes the criteria and weights to be used and the evaluation process as provided by program regulations at 7 CFR part 1709.

    1. Criteria

    The Administrator of RUS has established the merit selection and priority consideration criteria for evaluating and scoring the applications submitted under this notice pursuant to program regulations at 7 CFRs 1709.102 and 1709.123. The criteria set forth below will be used by one or more rating panels to be selected by the Assistant Administrator, Electric Programs. Additional information on how scoring criteria will be applied can be found in the FY 2015 Application Guide.

    The maximum number of points to be awarded is 100. The maximum points available under project design and technical merit criteria is 65. The maximum number of points to be awarded under priority considerations that support USDA and RUS program priorities is 35.

    The evaluation criteria and weights in this notice differ from those used in the 2014 notice. For this reason any 2014 applicant's packages being reconsidered will be rescored according to the criteria in this notice.

    Table 3 shows the selection criteria and weights that will be used in scoring the 2015 applications.

    Table 3—Project Merit and Priority Consideration Criteria for 2015 NOFA Project design and technical merit
  • (up to 65 points)
  • Maximum
  • points
  • Assessment of Community Needs 15 Project Design, Technical Feasibility and Responsiveness to Community Needs 10 Management Plan 10 Organizational Experience 5 Key Staff Experience 5 Project Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures 3 Project Reporting Plan 2 Project Budget, Financial Feasibility and Matching Contributions 10 State, Local, or Tribal Rural Development Initiatives 5 Priority Considerations (up to 35 points) High Poverty Areas Priority 10 Rurality (Population) 10 (A) 50 States and Puerto Rico: 1. 2,500 or less, 10 points; 2. Between 2,501 and 5,000, inclusive, 7 points; 3. Between 5,001 and 10,000, inclusive, 5 points; 4. Between 10,001 and 20,000, inclusive, 3 points; and 5. Above 20,000, 0 points. (B) Virgin Islands and Pacific Insular Areas, 10 points. Renewable Energy Projects 5 Extraordinary Circumstances or Conditions 5 SUTA Applications 5 Total Points 100
    i. Project Design and Technical Merit Criteria (Up to 65 Points Total)

    Reviewers will consider the soundness of applicant's analysis of community needs and benefits, the adequacy of the proposed project plan, the technical feasibility of the project, the adequacy of financial and other resources, the competence and experience of the applicant and its team, project goals and objectives, and performance measures. Project proposals will be evaluated on how well the proposal addresses application content requirements and evaluation criteria and how well their application compares to other applicants. A total of 65 points may be awarded under the following criteria.

    a. Assessment of Community Needs (Up to 15 points).

    Under this criterion, reviewers will consider the applicant's assessment of community needs and how the grant project addresses those needs and how the severity of identified needs compares to other applications. Reviewers will consider the identification and documentation of eligible communities, their populations, and assessment of community energy needs targeted by the grant project. Information on the severity of physical and economic challenges affecting eligible communities will be considered. Reviewers will weigh: (1) The applicant's analysis of community energy challenges and (2) why the applicant's proposal presents a greater need for Federal assistance than other competing applications. In assessing the applicant's demonstration of community needs, the rating panel will consider information in the narrative proposal addressing the following:

    (1) The burden placed on the community and individual households by extremely high energy costs. This burden may be evidenced by such quantitative measures as, for example, total energy expenditures, per unit energy costs, energy cost intensity for occupied space, or energy costs as a share of average household income, and persistence of extremely high energy costs compared to national or statewide averages.

    (2) The hardships created by limited access to reliable and affordable energy services;

    (3) The availability of other resources to support or supplement the proposed grant funding; and

    (4) Indications of community support for the proposed project solution to their energy challenges.

    b. Project Design, Technical Feasibility and Responsiveness to Community Needs. (Up to 10 points).

    Reviewers will assess the technical and economic feasibility of the project and how well its goals and objectives address the challenges of the extremely high energy cost community. The panel will review the proposed design, construction, equipment, and materials for the community energy facilities in establishing technical feasibility. Reviewers may propose additional conditions on the grant award to assure that the project is technically sound. Reviewers will consider the adequacy of the applicant's budget and resources to carry out the project as proposed and how the applicant proposes to manage available resources such as other grants, program income, and any other financing sources to maintain and operate a financially viable project once the grant period has ended. Reviewers may give higher scores to projects that are substantially ready to proceed with construction or implementation than to those that are early in the project development process.

    In this section, the applicant will be awarded points on the technological design of the project. The applicant must provide a narrative description of the project including a proposed scope of work identifying major tasks and proposed schedules for task completion, a detailed description of the equipment, facilities and associated activities to be financed with grant funds, the location of the eligible extremely high energy cost communities to be served, and an estimate of the overall duration of the project. The Project Design description should be sufficiently detailed to support a finding of technical feasibility. Proposed projects involving construction, repair, replacement, or improvement of electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities must generally be consistent with the standards and requirements for projects financed with loans and loan guarantees under the RE Act as set forth in the Agency's Electric Programs Regulations and Bulletins and may reference these requirements.

    c. Management Plan (Up to 10 points).

    Reviewers will assess the adequacy of the proposed management plan against the content requirements in this notice and in comparison to the quality of other applications received. Applicants should take care to address all the required content materials. Points will be awarded for robust management plans, and realistic succinct schedules. If the applicant proposes to secure equipment, design, construction, or other services from non-affiliated entities, the applicant must briefly describe how it plans to procure and/or contract for such equipment or services consistent with Federal requirements. Reviewers will award the highest points to applications that fully include all required information and support a finding that the combination of management team's experience, financial management capabilities, resources and project structure will enable successful completion of the project.

    d. Organizational Experience (Up to 5 points).

    Reviewers will assess the applicant's demonstrated experience in successfully administering and carrying out projects comparable to the grant proposal. In lieu of direct experience, reviewers will consider the efforts applicant has taken to secure the capacity to provide energy services in rural areas. The Agency will consider the experience of the project team and the effectiveness of the program design in compensating for lack of extensive experience. If the applicant has received any HECG funding, or other Federal funding a detailed description of past performance is required in this section. Points will be awarded to organizations with proven track records or that have established a management structure and team with capacity and experience to carry out the project. Points will be awarded based on how well the applicant addressed the content requirements of this notice, the quality of the proposed project organizational capacity and how the proposal compares with other applications.

    e. Key Staff Experience (Up to 5 points).

    Reviewers will assess the quality and capacity of project team to carry out the proposal. Reviewers will consider whether the key project staff members possess demonstrated experience in successfully administering and carrying out projects that are comparable to the grant proposal. Reviewers may consider whether the project team includes staff or other identified consultants or contractors needed to successfully complete the project. If the applicant proposes to use affiliated entities, contractors, or subcontractors to provide services funded under the grant, reviewers will consider the identities, relationship, qualifications, and experience of these affiliated entities. Points will be awarded based on how well the applicant addressed the requirements in this notice and how the applicant's proposal compares to other applications.

    f. Project Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures (Up to 3 points).

    Applicants must clearly identify project goals, objectives and performance measures to track the progress and success of their proposed project. Reviewers will assess how well the applicant's plan to evaluate and report on the success and cost-effectiveness of financed activities. Reviewers will consider how well the results obtained measure any benefits to the eligible community such as, for example, energy saved, costs saved or avoided, or renewable energy produced. Reviewers will also assess whether applicant's proposed measures provide a quantitative basis for tracking project success and whether the application provides documentation or references to support its statements about cost-effectiveness savings and improved services. Reviewers will award points based on how well the applicant meets the requirements of the notice, the effectiveness of the proposed measures to monitor performance, and how the application compares against other proposals.

    g. Project Reporting Plan (Up to 2 points).

    Reviewers will consider applicant's description of the reporting plan and how it contributes to tracking progress and performance and the consequences if project falls behind schedule. Reviewers will assess points based on the adequacy of the plan and how well it compares to other applications.

    h. Project Budget, Financial Feasibility and Matching Contributions (Up to 10 points).

    Reviewers will consider whether applicant has fully responded to requirements of this notice and whether the narrative, forms and exhibits provide sufficient information to assess the adequacy of the project budget and the financial feasibility of the project.

    The budget materials must document that planned administrative and other expenses of the project sponsor that are not directly related to performance of the grant will not total more than 4 percent of grant funds. The application must also identify the source and amount of any other Federal or non-Federal contributions of funds or services that will be used to support completion of the proposed project. Points will be awarded for completeness, realistic budget costs, and feasibility. Reviewers may consider total grant funds requested as a share of total project costs in assessing feasibility. All matching contributions must be clearly identified. No additional points will be awarded for matching contribution. Reviewers will consider them in assessing feasibility and commitment to completing the project. Reviewers will score the proposal based on how well the applicant's budget submission fully complied with requirements of the notice and whether project resources, including the grant request and identified matching contributions, are adequate to complete the project as proposed. Reviewers will also assess how well the applicant's proposal compared with other projects.

    i. State, Local, or Tribal Rural Development Initiatives (Up to 5 points).

    The reviewing panel will assess how effectively the proposed project is coordinated with State rural development initiatives, if any, and is consistent with and supports these efforts. [Note: The term “State rural development initiatives” refers to State or Tribal programs and USDA Rural Development programs. Go to: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices for more information.] The RUS will consider the documentation submitted for coordination efforts, community support and matching contributions, and State or local government recommendations. Applicants should identify the extent to which the project is dependent on or tied to other rural development initiatives, funding, and approvals. Applicants are advised that they should address this criterion explicitly even if only to report that the project is not coordinated with or supporting a State rural development initiative. Failure to address this criterion will result in zero points awarded.

    ii. Priority Considerations (up to 35 points total).

    In addition to the points awarded for project design and technical merit, all proposals will be reviewed and awarded additional points based on certain characteristics of the project or the target community. USDA Rural Development Mission Area policies generally encourage agencies to give priority in their programs to rural areas of greatest need and to support other Federal policy initiatives. In furtherance of these policies, the RUS will award additional points for the priorities identified in this notice. The priority criteria and point scores used in this notice are consistent with the program regulations in 7 CFR part 1709. The Agency will give priority consideration to areas suffering high poverty, smaller rural and remote communities, projects that support renewable energy, projects serving communities experiencing extraordinary circumstances affecting their ability to provide energy services, and Priority points will also be awarded to applications that the Administrator has accepted for consideration under Substantially Underserved Trust Area regulations at 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D. A maximum of 35 total points may be awarded under the following priority criteria.

    a. High Poverty Areas (10 points).

    USDA Rural Development is committed to reducing the impacts of high and persistent poverty in rural communities. The economic hardship of extensive and persistent poverty exacerbates the impacts of extremely high energy costs on families and businesses and hampers the community's ability to meet their energy needs. In support of this USDA initiative, we will award 10 priority points for projects that serve communities in counties that are classified as High Poverty or Persistent Poverty by the USDA Economic Research Service “Geography of Poverty” Web page (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx) or that are located in a county with at least one census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more using data from the American Community Survey (ACS) that can easily be accessed through the Census Bureau American Fact Finder Web page (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml). Applicants may use other population and income data from the U.S. Census, state, or tribal sources if the ACS does not contain information for their community or project area. In the absence of accurate community information The 2015 Application Guide provides additional details on high poverty areas. Reviewers will award 10 points for any application that serves one or more high poverty areas and that has required supporting population information.

    Note on Alternative Economic and Population Data for Eligible Territories and Insular Areas: RUS recognizes that comparable economic and household income information may not be available for eligible areas that are not States. Applicants from these areas should provide any public information that is readily available on territorial or national median household income and local community economic characteristics and other indications of economic challenge posed by extremely high energy costs. Applications from these areas will be scored based on the provided data.

    b. Rurality. (Up to 10 points).

    Consistent with the USDA Rural Development policy to target resources to smaller rural communities with significant needs and recognizing that smaller and remote communities are often comparatively disadvantaged in seeking assistance, RUS has established a sliding scale for awarding points based on population. RUS has also determined to award the full 10 points to applications from the Virgin Islands and eligible Pacific Insular areas. Reviewers will award additional points based on the rurality (as measured by population) of the project communities to be served with grant funds under one of two options below.

    (1) Applications from the Fifty States, and Puerto Rico. Applications from any one of the fifty States, or Puerto Rico, will be scored based on the population of the largest incorporated cities, towns, or villages, or census designated places included within the grant's proposed project area. Points will be awarded on the population of the largest target community within the proposed target area as follows:

    (a) 2,500 or less, 10 points;

    (b) Between 2,501 and 5,000, inclusive, 7 points;

    (c) Between 5,001 and 10,000, inclusive, 5 points;

    (d) Between 10,001 and 20,000, inclusive, 3 points; and

    (e) Above 20,000, 0 points.

    Applicants must use the latest available population figures from the 2010 U.S. Census available at American Fact Finder (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml) for every incorporated city, town, or village, or Census designated place included in the project community area.

    (2) Applications from the Virgin Islands and Pacific Insular Areas. (10 points).

    The priority scoring criteria are intended to carry out Rural Development policy to give priority to areas most challenged by extremely high energy costs and those without access to substantial alternative economic and institutional resources to address these challenges, particularly rural, remote, and substantially-underserved areas. U.S. Census population and economic data have been used as proxy measures for rurality, remoteness, and economic challenges. It has become evident that comparable, up-to-date U.S. Census population and economic information are not easily available or unavailable for communities in the Virgin Islands or Pacific insular areas. After consideration, the RUS has decided to adopt an alternative for scoring eligible applications from these areas. RUS will assign a rurality score of “10” to applications from the Virgin Islands and eligible insular areas in the Pacific. This policy will place these applications on an equal footing with competing applications from other rural and remote areas.

    c. Renewable Energy Projects (Up to 5 points).

    Reviewers will award up to 5 points for projects that install, upgrade, integrate, or connect renewable energy systems to increase availability of renewable generation in rural communities. This includes, but is not limited to, projects that support deployment of renewable energy technologies through acquisition, installation, improvement, upgrade, or integration of renewable energy for electricity generation, water heating, building or process heating systems, system controls and other smart grid technologies, distribution and transmission upgrades to integrate renewable generation, and energy battery and storage systems tied to renewable energy generation.

    d. Extraordinary Conditions or Circumstances (Up to 5 points).

    The Administrator in his sole discretion has decided to provide up to 5 points for project applications for communities that exhibit one or more extraordinary conditions or circumstances that affect the community's ability to provide energy services or to make investments to reduce energy use or costs. This priority includes considerations that were recognized separately under prior notices as well as allowing for recognition of other extraordinary circumstances adversely impacting eligible high energy cost communities. The 2015 Application Guide has more detail on situations that may qualify an application for priority points under this criterion. Reviewers may award up to a total of 5 points, based on their assessment of the hardship presented, for the following extraordinary circumstances:

    (1) Disaster. The community has suffered a natural or other disaster that affected critical community energy facilities. The application must provide details of when the disaster occurred, the extent of damage, and available resources for disaster recovery, including assistance from other agencies.

    (2) Unserved Energy Needs. Consistent with the purposes of the RE Act, projects that meet unserved or underserved energy needs may be awarded points under this criterion. Examples of proposals that may qualify under this priority include projects that extend or improve electric or other energy services to communities and customers that do not have reliable centralized or commercial service or where many homes remain without such service because the costs are unaffordable.

    (3) Imminent Hazard. Reviewers may award priority consideration for any applications including a project to correct a condition posing an imminent hazard to public safety, welfare, the environment, or to a critical community or residential energy facility. Examples include community energy facilities in immediate danger of failure because of deteriorated condition, capacity limitations, damage from natural disasters or accidents, or other conditions where impending failure of existing facilities or absence of energy facilities creates a substantial threat to public health or safety, or to the environment.

    (4) Extreme Economic Hardship. Reviewers may award additional priority points for projects serving communities with conditions creating a severe economic hardship to the community or the energy provider. The hardship must be adequately described and documented by the applicant. Examples include but are not limited to natural disasters, financially distressed local industry, and loss of major local employer, persistent poverty, outmigration, or other conditions adversely affecting the local economy, or contributing to unserved or underserved energy infrastructure needs that affect the economic health of the community. Applications from eligible areas that are not States will be scored under this alternative using information provided in the Application. The rating panel may assign points under this criterion, in lieu of awarding points based on the percentage of median household income. Award of priority points under this criterion is in addition to any that may be awarded for high poverty counties. Applicants may qualify under this criterion that do not meet the USDA Rural Development high poverty counties priority above.

    e. Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (5 points).

    Under SUTA regulations at 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D, eligible entities may request special consideration for applications for communities in trust areas that lack adequate levels or quality of service and are in high need of grant assistance. The Administrator, in his sole discretion, has determined, to award 5 points to any application from an eligible SUTA entity for projects serving eligible areas that are also eligible for the High Energy Cost Grant Program. To receive these points, the entity must submit a separate application and request for consideration under SUTA to the Agency on or before the closing date of this opportunity notice December 14, 2015. The Administrator will review the application and issue a letter indicating whether the application is complete and is accepted for consideration under SUTA. The decision to provide SUTA consideration to an eligible application is solely at the discretion of the Administrator.

    Reviewers will award 5 points to any project application that has been accepted for consideration under SUTA.

    iii. Cost Sharing

    There is no requirement for matching contributions under the High Energy Cost Grant Program. The Agency has determined not to make cost contributions a separate scoring criterion. Consideration of matching contributions may be considered by the rating panel in assessing project design, financial capacity to complete the project, budget, and rural development initiative criteria.

    2. Review and Selection Process i. Determining Eligibility

    RUS will review all application packages received to determine if they were submitted on or before December 14, 2015. Applications that are not timely submitted will be rejected. All timely received application packages will be reviewed for eligibility and completeness. Project proposals that contain all required application package content in acceptable format and that meet eligibility criteria will be accepted for consideration.

    Application packages that are late, incomplete or ineligible will be rejected. Applicants will be notified if they were found to be ineligible when project selections are announced. The determinations on timeliness, completeness and eligibility will be final. The rejection notice will provide information on any appeals.

    After the application closing date, RUS will not consider any unsolicited information from the applicant. The Agency may contact the applicant for additional information or to clarify statements in the application required to establish applicant or community eligibility and completeness. The RUS will not accept or solicit any additional information relating to the technical merits and feasibility of the grant proposal after the application closing date.

    The Agency will look only at the three page narrative in Part B of the application package to determine if the applicant, community and project meet program eligibility requirements established in this notice and program regulations.

    ii. Evaluation and Scoring of Eligible Applications.

    The Agency will use one or more rating panels composed of Agency employees to review and score eligible applications. The panel will evaluate and score the applications using the selection criteria and weights established in this notice along with the additional information provided in the 2015 Application Guide. As part of the proposal review and ranking process, panel members may make comments and recommendations for appropriate conditions on grant awards to promote successful performance of the grant or to assure compliance with other Federal requirements. The decision to include panel recommendations on grant conditions in any grant award will be at the sole discretion of the RUS Administrator.

    The rating panel members' individual scores for each application will be consolidated with those from other members to create a total score for each application. The panel will forward their individual scores and the ranked list of projects to the Assistant Administrator, Electric Programs for review of consistency with this notice and program regulations. The Assistant Administrator may refer the ranked list or individual project scores back to the rating panel or to an individual member to correct any apparent error or inconsistency (such as awarding a higher number of points than allowed) or for questions about scoring of individual projects. The Assistant Administrator will then prepare a selection memo for the Administrator along with a list of ranked projects.

    iii. Review and Selection of Applications

    The RUS Administrator will review the rankings and recommendations of the applications provided by the rating panel and consistent with the requirements of this notice. The Administrator may return any application to the rating panel with written instruction for reconsideration if, in his sole discretion, he finds that the scoring of an application is inconsistent with this notice and the directions provided to the rating panel.

    Following any adjustments to the project in ranking, as a result of reconsideration, the Administrator will select finalists for grant awards. Administrator will consider projects in rank order taking in to account the applications, the rankings, comments, and recommendations of the rating panel, and other pertinent information, including availability of funds. The Administrator may fund grant requests in rank order to the extent of available funds. Upon consideration of panel recommendations and availability of funds, the Administrator may, in his sole discretion, decide to offer an award of less than the full amount of grant requested by an applicant. The applicant will be notified and offered a partial award. If the applicant declines an award, the offer will be withdrawn. If at any point in the selection process sufficient funds are not available to fund the next ranked project, the Administrator may, in his sole discretion, offer a partial award to the next project, or skip over that project to the next ranking project that can be supported with available funding. The Administrator may in his sole discretion, make additional awards to unfunded applications in rank order if additional funds become available.

    Because of the limited amount of funds available, no applicant or project will receive more than one award under this notice. If two projects from the same applicant score high enough to potentially receive funding, the Administrator will select the project with the highest score.

    The Administrator may decide based on the recommendations of the rating panel, or in his sole discretion, that a grant award should be made contingent upon the applicant satisfying certain conditions. For example, RUS will not obligate funding for a selected project—such as projects requiring extensive environmental review and mitigation, preparation of detailed site specific engineering studies and designs, or requiring local permitting, or availability of supplemental financing—until any such additional conditions are satisfied and adequate funds remain available. In the event that any selected applicant fails to comply with the all pre-award conditions within the time set by RUS, the award selection will be withdrawn.

    3. Notice to Applicants for Certain Grant Awards.

    This notice may result in awards where the total Federal share will be greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (See 2 CFR 200.88) on any Federal award under this notice over the period of performance (see 7 CFR 200.88). Therefore, applicants are advised that:

    (i) RUS, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313);

    (ii) An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM; and

    (iii) RUS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR part 200.

    4. Anticipated Announcement and Federal Award Dates

    After the Administrator's decision, the RUS will notify successful applicants that they have been selected for a grant award. This selection is subject to continued availability of funds and compliance with all post-award requirements including but not limited to completion of any additional environmental reviews and execution of a grant agreement satisfactory to the RUS. This selection does not bind the Government to making a final grant award. Only an agreement executed by the Administrator will constitute a binding obligation and commitment of Federal funds. Grant funds will not be awarded or disbursed until all requirements have been satisfied and are contingent on the continued availability of funds at the time of the award. The RUS will advise selected applicants of any additional requirements or conditions.

    RUS anticipates that award decisions will be made within 6 months of the closing date, depending on availability of funds. Final selection announcements will be posted on our Web site (http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/high-energy-cost-grants).

    5. Appeals

    After review, the RUS will reject any application package that in its sole discretion is not complete or that does not demonstrate that the applicant, community or project is eligible under the requirements of this NOSA and applicable program regulations. Applicants will be notified in writing of RUS's decision. Applicants may appeal the eligibility rejection pursuant to program regulations on appeals at 7 CFR 1709.6 for the high energy cost grant program. Applicants must appeal in writing to the RUS Administrator within 10 days after the applicant is notified of the determination to reject the application. The appeal must state the basis for the appeal. Appeals must be directed to the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1500, Washington, DC 20250-1500. The Administrator will review the appeal to determine whether to sustain, reverse, or modify the original determination by the Assistant Administrator. The Administrator's decision shall be final. A written copy of the Administrator's decision will be furnished promptly to the applicant.

    F. Federal Award Administration 1. Federal Award Notices

    The RUS will notify all applicants in writing whether they have been selected for an award. Successful applicants will be advised in writing of their selection. The receipt of an award selection letter is not a binding award of Federal funds. The selection letter does not authorize the applicant to commence performance under the award. After notification of selection, applicants will have to meet all pre-award requirements under program and other federal regulations and policies. The Agency will advise the applicant of any additional requirements or pre-award conditions. After the pre-award conditions are satisfied, the Agency will send a conditions letter with all project-specific terms and conditions to be included in the grant agreement. After the applicant indicates acceptance of these terms and conditions the Administrator will approve the award and execute the grant agreement.

    Successful applicants will be required to sign a grant agreement acceptable to the Agency and complete additional grant forms and certifications required by USDA as part of the process.

    Grant funds will not be advanced unless and until the applicant has executed a grant agreement and funds will not be advanced until all conditions have been satisfied in a manner satisfactory to RUS.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements i. Environmental Review and Restriction on Certain Activities

    Following the announcement, selected applicants will be required to submit the appropriate environmental review documentation, as outlined in the RUS environmental questionnaire and to prepare and submit any other environmental impact analyses required by RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794, or its successor). Successful applicants will be advised whether additional environmental review requirements apply to their proposals. These reviews may result in additional project conditions that RUS will include in the grant agreement. Also, as a condition of any award, applicants must agree to comply with conditions imposed on the grant project by any other Federal, State, or Tribal environmental laws and regulations, license, or permit.

    In accordance with 7 CFR 1794.15, or its successor, applicants are restricted from taking actions that may have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of alternatives being considered until the environmental review process is concluded. If an applicant takes such actions, RUS will not award or advance grant funds. If the proposed grant project involves physical development activities or property acquisition, the applicant is generally prohibited from acquiring, rehabilitating, converting, leasing, repairing or constructing property or facilities, or committing or expending RUS or non-RUS funds for proposed grant activities until the RUS has completed any environmental review in accordance with 7 CFR part 1794 or its successor and determined that no environmental review is required.

    ii. Other Federal Requirements

    High Energy Cost Grant Program Regulations (7 CFR part 1709), the requirements of this notice, the 2015 Application Guide and accompanying materials establish the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements for awards under this program. These requirements include but are not limited to:

    (1) Executing a Grant Agreement acceptable to the Agency;

    (2) Signing Form AD-3031 (“Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants”) (for corporate applicants only);

    (3) Using the forms specified in the Grant Agreement for requesting advances and reimbursements and submitting and maintaining supporting documentation of expenditures and receipts for use of funds awarded under this grant;

    (4) Providing quarterly project performance activity reports with required forms specified in the grant agreement until the expiration of the project term;

    (5) Ensuring that records are maintained to document all grant supported activities and expenditures and matching contributions;

    (6) Providing a final project performance report after completion of construction and one year's worth of operation; and

    (7) Complying with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Federal regulations, and any successor regulations:

    • 2 CFR part 200, (Office of Management and Budget, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards);

    • 2 CFR part 400, (United States Department of Agriculture, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards);

    • 2 CFR part 180, (Office of Management and Budget Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement);

    • 2 CFR part 416, (United States Department of Agriculture, General Program Administrative Regulations for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments);

    • 2 CFR part 417, (United States Department of Agriculture, Government-wide debarment and suspension (non-procurement);

    • 2 CFR part 418 (United States Department of Agriculture, New restrictions on Lobbying);

    • 2 CFR part 421 (United States Department of Agriculture, Government-wide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants);

    • 7 CFR part 15, subpart A, (United States Department of Agriculture, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);

    • 7 CFR part 1767 Rural Utilities Service, (Accounting Requirements for RUS Electric Borrowers); and

    • 7 CFR part 1773 Rural Utilities Service, (Policy on Audits of RUS Borrowers).

    Compliance with additional OMB Circulars or government-wide regulations may be specified in the grant agreement.

    3. Reporting

    i. The grantee must provide periodic financial and performance reports under USDA grant regulations, program rules and the grant agreement. The grantee must submit a final project performance report. The nature and frequency of required reports is established in USDA grant regulations and the project-specific grant agreements.

    ii. The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:

    (a) First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more in non-Recovery Act funds (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to http://www.fsrs.gov no later than the end of the month following the month the obligation was made. Please note that currently underway is a consolidation of eight Federal procurement systems, including the Sub-award Reporting System (FSRS), into one system, the System for Award Management (SAM). As a result, the FSRS will soon be consolidated into and accessed through https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

    (b) The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ by the end of the month following the month in which the award was made.

    (c) Total Compensation of the Subrecipient's Executives.

    The Total Compensation of the Subrecipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Subrecipient (if the Subrecipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the subaward was made.

    (d) If the total value of the Recipient's currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this Federal award, then during that period of time the Recipient must maintain the currency of information reported to SAM that is made available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings as outlined further in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact

    The RUS Contact for this grant announcement is Robin Meigel, Finance Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, Electric Program, Office of Portfolio Management and Risk Assessment, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1568, Room 1274-S, Washington, DC 20250-1568. Telephone (202) 720-9452, Fax (202) 720-1401, email: [email protected]

    H. Other Information 1. Disclosure of Information

    All material submitted by the applicant or grantee may be made available to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and USDA's implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 1.

    In addition, in compliance with statutory requirements for Federal spending transparency, USDA will announce all Federal awards publicly and publish the required information on a publicly available OMB-designated government-wide Web site (at time of publication, www.USAspending.gov) (2 CFR 200.211).

    2. Civil Rights i. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    USDA prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

    ii. How To File a Complaint

    If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

    If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]

    iii. Persons With Disabilities

    Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and that wish to file either an EEO or program complaint may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

    Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Dated: September 10, 2015. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25975 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Civil Rights Issues in the State, and Potential Next Project Topics for the Committee's Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, November 20, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of reviewing and discussing current civil rights concerns in the state, and potential next topics of study for the Committee.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-428-9480, conference ID: 284644. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246. Click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links to download. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Review and Discussion of Civil Rights Project Topics Open Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, November 20, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 888-428-9480

    Conference ID: 284644

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    Dated October 6, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25891 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Nebraska Advisory Committee To Discuss Findings and Recommendations Resulting From Its Inquiry Into the Civil Rights Impact of Nebraska's 2009 Legislative Bill 403 AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, October 29, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing and findings and recommendations related to its inquiry regarding the civil rights impact of Nebraska's 2009 Legislative Bill 403. The Committee will also begin discussion of civil rights topics for future consideration.

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-430-8709, conference ID: 908320. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also invited and welcomed to make statements at the end of the conference call. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by November 30, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=260 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion of findings and recommendations regarding NE 2990 LB403 Discussion and consideration of future civil rights topics Open Comment Adjournment
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 29, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. CDT.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-430-8709 Conference ID: 908320 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 6, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25890 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee to Discuss Themes and Findings Resulting From Testimony Received Regarding Civil Rights and Police/Community Interactions in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, November 02, 2015, for the purpose of discussing oral and written testimony received during two public meetings focused on civil rights and police and community interactions in Missouri. Themes and findings discussed during this meeting will form the basis of a report to be issued to the Commission on this topic.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-455-2263, conference ID: 3504640. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within thirty days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=258. Click on “meeting details” and “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Committee Discussion: Themes and findings resulting from Committee hearings on Civil Rights and Police/Community Relations in Missouri. (February 23, 2015 St. Louis; August 20, 2015 Kansas City) Open Comment Recommendations and Next Steps
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, November 02, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-455-2263 Conference ID: 3504640.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected]

    Dated: October 6, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25889 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-66-2015] Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone—Hitchcock, Texas; Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of Hitchcock to establish a foreign-trade zone at a site in Hitchcock, Texas, adjacent to the Houston Customs and Border Protection (CBP) port of entry, under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new “subzones” or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on October 6, 2015. The applicant is authorized to make the proposal under Texas Statutes, Business and Commerce Code, Title 15, Chapter 681.

    The proposed zone would be the sixth zone for the Houston CBP port of entry. The existing zones are as follows: FTZ 36, Galveston (Grantee: Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves, Board Order 129, May 4, 1978); FTZ 84, Houston (Grantee: Port of Houston Authority, Board Order 214, July 15, 1983); FTZ 171, Liberty County (Grantee: Liberty County Economic Development Corp., Board Order 501, January 4, 1991); FTZ 199, Texas City (Grantee: Texas City Foreign-Trade Zone Corp., Board Order 681, February 1, 1994); and, FTZ 265, Conroe (Grantee: City of Conroe, Board Order 1410, September 16, 2005).

    The applicant's proposed service area under the ASF would be the City of Hitchcock, Texas. If approved, the applicant would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Houston CBP port of entry.

    The proposed zone would include one “magnet” site: Proposed Site 1 (280.54 acres)—Blimp Base, 7529 Blimp Base Road, Hitchcock. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted.

    The application states that there is a need for zone services in the Hitchcock area and that several firms have indicated an interest in using zone procedures. Specific production approvals are not being sought at this time. Such requests would be made to the FTZ Board on a case-by-case basis.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 14, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 28, 2015.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25981 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of Rex Gene Maralit, Inmate Number—80731-053, FCI Ashland, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 6001, Ashland, KY 41105: Order Denying Export Privileges

    On March 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Rex Gene Maralit (“Maralit”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Maralit knowingly and willfully exported from the United States to the Philippines one or more defense articles, designated on the United States Munitions List, to wit: Various firearms and firearms accessories and components, without first obtaining the required license or written approval from the State Department. Maralit was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and fined a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. sections 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. sections 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2015). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA 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 (August 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)).

    BIS has received notice of Maralit's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Maralit to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Maralit.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Maralit's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Maralit's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Maralit had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until March 27, 2025, Rex Gene Maralit, with a last known address of Inmate Number—80731-053, FCI Ashland, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 6001, Ashland, KY 41105, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), 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 Regulations, 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 Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; 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 Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the 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 the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations 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 Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations 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, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Maralit 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 order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Maralit may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Maralit. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until March 27, 2025.

    Issued this 5th day of October, 2015. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25936 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Wilfredo Maralit, Inmate Number—66605-112, FCI Ashland, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 6001, Ashland, KY 41105 and with an address at: 45 Betts Avenue, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648.

    On March 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Wilfredo Maralit (“Maralit”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Maralit knowingly and willfully exported from the United States to the Philippines one or more defense articles, designated on the United States Munitions List, to wit: Various firearms and firearms accessories and components, without first obtaining the required license or written approval from the State Department. Maralit was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and fined a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2015). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA 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 (August 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)).

    BIS has received notice of Maralit's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Maralit to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Maralit.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Maralit's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Maralit's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Maralit had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until March 27, 2025, Wilfredo Maralit, with last known addresses of Inmate Number—66605-112, FCI Ashland, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 6001, Ashland KY 41105 and 45 Betts Avenue, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), 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 Regulations, 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 Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; 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 Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the 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 the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations 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 Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations 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, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Maralit 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 order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Maralit may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Maralit. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until March 27, 2025.

    Issued this 5th day of October, 2015. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25944 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-502] Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2013 and Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has completed the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (steel pipes and tubes) from Turkey for the January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, period of review (POR) in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). This review covers four exporters/producers, one of which is being individually examined as a mandatory respondent. In these final results, the Department has made changes to the net subsidy rate determined for the sole mandatory respondent, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (BMB), Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal), and Borusan Lojistik Dagitim Pepolama Tasimacilik ve Tic A.S. (Borusan Lojistik) (collectively, the Borusan Companies). Further, in these final results, we have continued to apply the net subsidy rate calculated for the Borusan Companies to the following three respondents not subject to individual review: Tosyali dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) and Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik Profil), (collectively, the Toscelik Companies), Umran Celik Born Sanayii A.S. (also known as Umran Steel Pipe Inc.) (Umran), and Guven Steel Pipe (also known as Guven Celik Born San. Ve Tic. Ltd.) (Guven). Additionally, in these final results the Department is rescinding the review of two companies Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan AS) and Erbosan Erciyas Pipe Industry and Trade Co. Kayseri Free Zone Branch (Erbosan FZB), (collectively, the Erbosan Companies) and the Yucel Group and all affiliates including Yucel Boru ye Profil Endustrisi A.S, Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ye Pazarlama A.S, and Cayirova Born Sanayi ye Ticaret A.S.) (collectively, the Yucel Companies) that timely certified that they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff at 202-482-1009, or Jolanta Lawska at 202-482-8362, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    Background

    On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register the CVD order on steel pipes and tubes from Turkey.1 On April 8, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results for this review.2 In the Preliminary Results, we invited interested parties to submit case and rebuttal briefs commenting on the preliminary results and to request a hearing.3 On May 8, 2015, we received case briefs from the Borusan Companies, the Government of Turkey (GOT), and the Toscelik Companies. We received no rebuttal briefs.

    1See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey, 51 FR 7984 (March 7, 1986).

    2See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent To Rescind in Part; Calendar Year 2013, 80 FR 18809 (April 8, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    3Id., 80 FR at 18810.

    On April 8, 2015 the Borusan Companies requested a hearing. On June 1, 2015, the Borusan Companies withdrew their request for a hearing.

    On June 16, 2015, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of this administrative review until October 5, 2015.4

    4See Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office III, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations through Erin Begnal, Director, Office III, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated June 16, 2015 regarding Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey; 2013, “Extension of Time Limit for Final Results” (June 16, 2015).

    Scope of Order

    The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings as 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable during the POR, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that confers a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. For a complete description of the methodology, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5

    5See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Countervailing Duty (CVD) Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey,” dated concurrently with these final results (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs of the Borusan Companies, the GOT, and the Toscelik Companies are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Rescission of the 2013 Administrative Review, in Part

    The Department did not receive any information from interested parties or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that was contrary to the claims of the Erbosan Companies and the Yucel Companies of no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR after we indicated our intent to rescind the administrative review. Accordingly, based on record evidence, we determine that the Erbosan Companies and the Yucel Companies did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice,6 we are rescinding the review for the Erbosan Companies and the Yucel Companies.

    6See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 2635 (January 15, 2014).

    Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, the Borusan Companies. Because the Borusan Companies are the sole mandatory respondent, we assigned to those companies not selected for individual review, the rate calculated for the Borusan Companies. As a result of this review, we determine the listed net subsidy rates for January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013:

    Company Net subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Borusan Group, Borusan Holding, A.S. (Borusan Holding), Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan), Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal), and Borusan Lojistik Dagitim Pepolama Tasimacilik ve Tic A.S. (Borusan Lojistik) (collectively, the Borusan Companies) 0.91 ad valorem. Umran Celik Born Sanayii A.S. (also known as Umran Steel Pipe Inc.) (Umran) 0.91 ad valorem. Guven Steel Pipe (also known as Guven Celik Born San. Ve Tic. Ltd.) (Guven) 0.91 ad valorem. Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik Profil), Toscelik Metal Ticaret AS., and Tosyali Dis Ticaret AS. (Tosyali) (collectively, the Toscelik Companies) 0.91 ad valorem.
    Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by respondents listed above entered, or withdrawn form warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.

    For the Erbosan Companies and Yucel Companies, the rescinded companies, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the rates for the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation which is subject to sanction.

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I. Summary II. Rescission of the 2013 Administrative Review, in Part III. Subsidies Valuation Information A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsidies C. Benchmark Interest Rates IV. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue 2. Short-Term Pre-Shipment Rediscount Program 3. Investment Encouragement Program (IEP): Customs Duty Exemptions 4. Provision of HRS for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) B. Programs Determined Not To Confer Countervailable Benefits 1. Inward Processing Certificate Exemption C. Programs Determined Not to Be Used V. Non-Selected Rate VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Department Erred by Finding That Prices of HRS in Turkey Are Significantly Distorted Comment 2: Calculating the Share of HRS Accounted for by Erdemir and Isdemir Comment 3: Data Sources Used in the Calculation of the Tier-Two Benchmark Price Comment 4: Calculating the Tier-Two Benchmark Price Concerning Import Duties and VAT Comment 5: Calculating the Tier-Two Benchmark Price Concerning Freight Comment 6: Whether the Method the Department Used To Weight Average the Tier-Two Benchmark Is Flawed Comment 7: Whether Erdemir and Isdemir Are Public Bodies Comment 8: The Department's Specificity Determination Comment 9: Whether the Department Erred in Not Selecting the Toscelik Companies as a Mandatory Respondent VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25989 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-822] Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 22, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of welded line pipe from Turkey.1 The following events occurred since the Preliminary Determination was issued.

    1See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 29617 (May 22, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    In May and June 2015, the Department verified the sales and cost of production (COP) information submitted by the two participating mandatory respondents in this investigation, Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Yücel Boru Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively, Çayirova) and Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S./Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Tosçelik), in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.

    On July 27, 2015, we requested that Tosçelik submit a revised COP database to reflect minor corrections made at verification. On August 7, 2015, we received Tosçelik's revised COP database.

    We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On August 6 and August 11, 2015, respectively, the petitioners,2 Çayirova, and Tosçelik submitted case and rebuttal briefs.

    2 The petitioners in this investigation are American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Energex (a division of JMC Steel Group), Maverick Tube Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Stupp Corporation (a division of Stupp Bros., Inc.), Tex-Tube Company, TMK IPSCO, and Welspun Tubular LLC USA.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation covers welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.3 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey” (October 5, 2015) (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in May and June 2015, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Çayirova and Tosçelik for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Çayirova and Tosçelik.4

    4See Memorandum to the File from Alice Maldonado and David Crespo, Senior Analysts, entitled “Verification of the Sales Responses of Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Tosçelik Profil) and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) (collectively, Tosçelik) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from Turkey,” dated July 16, 2015; Memorandum to the File from Alice Maldonado and David Crespo, Senior Analysts, entitled “Verification of the Sales Response of Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Çayirova Boru) and Yücel Boru Ithatlat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.Ş. (YIIP) (collectively, Çayirova) in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from Turkey,” dated July 22, 2015; Memorandum to the File from Robert Greger, Senior Accountant, entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from Turkey,” dated June 30, 2015; and Memorandum to the File from Heidi Schriefer and Robert Greger, Senior Accountants, entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from Turkey,” dated June 18, 2015.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Çayirova and Tosçelik. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. In addition, we changed the dumping margin assigned to two additional mandatory respondents in this investigation, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan Mannesmann) and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret (Borusan Istikbal). Because these companies failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, in the Preliminary Determination, we based the preliminary dumping margin for these companies on adverse facts available (AFA), in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. As AFA, we preliminarily assigned a rate of 9.85 percent (i.e., the petition rate). For the final determination, we assigned these companies an AFA margin of 22.95 percent, which is the highest calculated final dumping margin. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For the Final Determination, the Department calculated the “all others” rate based on a weighted average of Çayirova's and Tosçelik's margins using publicly-ranged quantities for their sales of subject merchandise.5

    5See Memorandum to the File from David Crespo, Senior Analyst, entitled, “Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Calculation of the Final Margin for All Other Companies,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (All Others Calculation Memorandum). With two respondents, we normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010).

    Final Determination

    The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Borusan Istikbal Ticaret 22.95 Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S 22.95 Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Yücel Boru Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S 22.95 Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S./Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S 6.66 All Others 7.10
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of welded line pipe from Turkey, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 22, 2015, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. If a CVD order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceed the U.S. price as shown above, adjusted for export subsidies, as appropriate, found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation on welded line pipe from Turkey.6 Specifically, consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, as indicated below, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.7

    6 The Department terminated the suspension of liquidation associated with the CVD investigation effective July 18, 2015. See CBP message no. 5201304 dated July 20, 2015. Therefore, until and unless suspension of liquidation is resumed, we will not adjust the AD cash deposit rate for collection of duties associated with export subsidies.

    7See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2004); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012).

    Accordingly, if a CVD order is issued, for cash deposit purposes, we will subtract from the applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the affirmative countervailing duty determination for each respondent (i.e., 27.32 percent for Borusan Istikbal and Borusan Mannesman, 0.86 percent for Çayirova and all others, and 0.86 percent for Tosçelik).8 After this adjustment, the resulting cash deposit rates will be 0.00 percent for Borusan Istikbal and Borusan Mannesmann, 22.09 percent for Çayirova, 5.80 percent for Tosçelik, and 6.24 percent for all others. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    8See Memorandum to the File from Alice Maldonado, Analyst, entitled, “Placing Information on the Record: Export Subsidies Calculated in the Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey,” dated October 5, 2015.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of welded line pipe from Turkey no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APO)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    The welded line pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and 7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Investigation 4. Margin Calculations 5. Discussion of the Issues a. Duty Drawback Comments i. Duty Drawback ii. KKDF iii. U.S. Exports of Subject Merchandise iv. Unreliability of Reported Duty Drawback Information v. Deducting Expenses from the Duty Drawback Calculation vi. Making a Duty Drawback Adjustment to Normal Value and/or Capping the U.S. Duty Drawback Adjustment vii. Treatment of Duty Drawback in the Calculation of the Cash Deposit Rate viii. Moot Arguments related to Duty Drawback b. Company-Specific Comments i. Çayirova 1. Çayirova's U.S. Date of Sale 2. Çayirova's Pipe Specification for a Home Market Sale 3. Çayirova's General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses ii. Tosçelik 1. Tosçelik's Reporting of Home Market Sales 2. Tosçelik's Home Market Interest Rate 3. Tosçelik's Late Shipment Penalties 4. Tosçelik's Net Financial Expense 5. Tosçelik's Polyethylene (PE) Coated Product Costs 6. Tosçelik's Revised Manufacturing Costs 7. Tosçelik's Second Quality Pipe Adjustment 8. Moot Arguments for Tosçelik iii. Borusan Mannesmann and Borusan Istikbal 1. Basing the Margin for Borusan Mannesmann and Borusan Istikbal on AFA 6. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25990 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-877] Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of investigation is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.

    DATES:

    Effective date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Trainor or Reza Karamloo, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4007 or (202) 482-4470, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The petitioners in this investigation are American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Energex (a division of JMC Steel Group), Maverick Tube Corporation (Maverick), Northwest Pipe Company, Stupp Corporation (a division of Stupp Bros., Inc.), Tex-Tube Company, TMK IPSCO, and Welspun Tubular LLC USA (collectively, the petitioners). In addition to the Government of the Republic of Korea, the mandatory respondents in this investigation are SeAH Steel Corporation and NEXTEEL Co. Ltd.

    The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination1 on March 20, 2015, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby incorporated in this notice.2 This memorandum also details the changes we made since the Preliminary Determination to the subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and all other producers/exporters. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 14907 (March 20, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Negative Determination” (October 5, 2015) (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation covers welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Final Determination

    We determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Company Subsidy rate SeAH Steel Corporation 0.44 percent (de minimis) NEXTEEL Co., Ltd 0.28 percent (de minimis)

    Because the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate for each examined company is de minimis, we determine that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers or exporters of welded line pipe from Korea. We did not calculate an all-others rate pursuant to sections 705(c)(1)(B) and (c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) because we did not reach an affirmative final determination. Because our final determination is negative, this proceeding is terminated in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act.

    In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually examined respondents were de minimis and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation of entries of welded line pipe from Korea. Because the estimated subsidy rates for the examined companies are de minimis in this final determination, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of welded line pipe from Korea.

    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our final determination. Because our final determination is negative, this investigation is terminated.

    Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    The welded line pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and 7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available V. Subsidies Valuation VI. Analysis of Programs VII. Analysis of Comments 1. Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) 2. Unreported Subsidies 3. Specificity of RSTA Tax Programs 4. Special Rural Development Tax 5. Husteel as a Mandatory or Voluntary Respondent VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25967 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-876] Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Goldberger or Ross Belliveau, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4952, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 22, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of welded line pipe from Korea.1 For a history of events following the publication of the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum,2 which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 29620 (May 22, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation covers welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,3 which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    3See Id.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during the period June through August 2015, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by HYSCO and SeAH for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by HYSCO and SeAH.4

    4See Memoranda to the File entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of SeAH Steel Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from Korea,” and “Verification of the Cost Response of Hyundai HYSCO Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from South Korea,” dated July 31, 2015; Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Sales Responses of Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO),” dated August 18, 2015; and Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Sales Responses of SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and Pusan Pipe America (PPA),” dated August 24, 2015.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for HYSCO and SeAH. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for both mandatory respondents that are above de minimis and which are not based on section 776 of the Act. However, because there are only two relevant weighted-average dumping margins for this final determination, using a weighted-average of these two rates risks disclosure of business proprietary data. Therefore, the Department assigned a margin to the all-others rate companies based on the simple average of the two mandatory respondents' rates.5

    5See Memorandum to the File entitled “Calculation of the All-Others Rate for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with this memorandum.

    Final Determination

    The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted
  • Average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Hyundai HYSCO6 6.19 SeAH Steel Corporation 2.53 All-Others 4.36
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of any public announcement of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    6See discussion in footnote 2 above.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of welded line pipe from Korea, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 22, 2015, the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) For the mandatory respondents listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination adjusted, as appropriate, for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation; 7 (2) if the exporter is not a mandatory respondent identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rates for all other producers or exporters will be 4.36 percent. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    7 In this case, although the product under investigation is also subject to a countervailing duty investigation, the Department found no countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy. Therefore, we did not offset the cash deposit rates shown above for purposes of this determination.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of welded line pipe from Korea no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APO)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated; October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    The welded line pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and 7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum General Comments 1. Differential Pricing Analysis 2. Other Issues Related to Differential Pricing Analysis 3. Selection of Additional Mandatory/Voluntary Respondents 4. Consolidation of Grade Codes 5. Reasonableness of the Reported Costs Company-Specific Comments HYSCO 6. HYSCO's Classification of Certain “Local Sales” as Home Market Sales 7. Sales of Non-Prime Merchandise 8. Revision of Certain Home Market Shipment and Sales Dates 9. Allocation of Full Costs to the Production of Non-Prime Products 10. Alleged Errors Relating to the Major Input Analysis 11. Revision of G&A Expenses 12. Financial Expense Ratio 13. Constructed Value Profit 14. Affiliated Processors' Cost Data and Adjustments to the Toll Processing Costs 15. Adjustment to Steel Costs to Reflect Yield Loss 16. Unreconciled Cost Difference 17. Adjustment for Certain Fees Paid to Affiliates SeAH 18. Domestic Inland Freight 19. U.S. Credit Expenses 20. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 21. Affiliated Party Purchases 22. G&A Expenses 23. Production Costs of the Pohang Plant 24. Financial Expenses
    [FR Doc. 2015-25980 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-848] Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 5, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan.1 The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Teh Fong Ming International Co., Ltd. (TFM). For the final results, we find that TFM has not sold subject merchandise at less than normal value.

    1See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2104, 80 FR 32085 (June 5, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1757, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 5, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this review in the Federal Register. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On July 20, 2015, TFM submitted a case brief. No other party submitted case or rebuttal briefs. No party requested a hearing. The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order2 is OBAs and is currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.20.8000, 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.3

    2See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27419 (May 10, 2012) (Order).

    3 A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan: Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of the Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case brief submitted in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted with this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached as an Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for TFM for the period May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014.

    Assessment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 and the Final Modification, 4 the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all appropriate entries for TFM without regard to antidumping duties.

    4See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TFM for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.5

    5 For a full discussion, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of OBAs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for TFM will be 0.00 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for other manufacturers and exporters covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 6.19 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation.6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6 The all-others rate established in the Order.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: CEP Offset Comment 2: Cost Assigned to Merchandise Sold but Not Produced During the POR Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25966 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-602] Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request from Petitioners,1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Germany. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014.2 The review covers ten producers or exporters of subject merchandise.3 We find that three of the producers or exporters for which the Department initiated a review, Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland, had no shipments during the POR. Further, we find that subject merchandise has been sold at less than normal value by seven of the companies subject to this review.4 Based on our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results remain unchanged from the Preliminary Results. 5 For the final weighted-average dumping margin, see the “Final Results of Review” section below.

    1 The Petitioners are GBC Metals, LLC of Global Brass and Copper, Inc., dba Olin Brass, Heyco Metals, Inc., Aurubis Buffalo, Inc. PMX Industries, Inc. and Revere Copper Products, Inc.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 24398 (April 30, 2014) (Initiation).

    3 The ten producers or exporters include: Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG, Carl Schreiber GmbH, KME Germany AG & Co. KG, Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG (Messingwerk), MKM Mansfelder Kupfer & Messing GmbH, Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH & Co. KG, Schwermetall Halbzeugwerk GmbH & Co. KG (Schwermetall), Sundwiger Messingwerke GmbH & Co. KG, ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (ThyssenKrupp), and Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland).

    4 The seven companies include Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG, Carl Schreiber GmbH, KME Germany AG & Co. KG, Messingwerk, MKM Mansfelder Kupfer & Messing GmbH, Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH & Co. KG, and Sundwiger Messingwerke GmbH & Co. KG.

    5See Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014, 80 FR 18357 (April 6, 2015) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying “Preliminary Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; 2013-2014” from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated March 31, 2015 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). The three producers or exporters which we determine had no shipments are Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George McMahon or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is brass sheet and strip, other than leaded brass and tin brass sheet and strip, from Germany, which is currently classified under subheading 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75, 7409.21.00.90, 7409.29.00.50, 7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.6

    6 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; 2013-2014” from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to Messingwerk, the sole company selected for individual examination in this review. Thus, we are assigning a rate of 55.60 percent as the dumping margin for Messingwerk.7 In making these findings, we relied on facts available because Messingwerk failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and thus withheld requested information, failed to provide requested information by the established deadlines, and significantly impeded this proceeding. See sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A)-(C) of the Act. Furthermore, because we determine that Messingwerk failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See section 776(b) of the Act.

    7 For a full description of the Department's selection of the 55.60 percent adverse facts available dumping margin, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Additionally, as indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section below, we determine that a margin of 22.61 percent applies to the six firms not selected for individual review. We have determined to base the dumping margin for the six companies not selected for individual examination in this review on an average of the range of certain dumping margins contained in the underlying Petition.8 For further information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 9 at the section titled, “Rate for Non-Examined Companies.”

    8See Brass Sheet and Strip From The Federal Republic of Germany; Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 51 FR 11774 (April 7, 1986).

    9See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics included in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included in the Appendix attached to this notice.

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland, we determine that Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. For a full discussion of this determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department determines that the following dumping margins on brass sheet and strip from Germany exist for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014:

    Producer and/or exporter Margin
  • (percent)
  • Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG 22.61 Carl Schreiber GmbH 22.61 KME Germany AG & Co. KG 22.61 Messingwerk Plettenberg Herfeld GmbH & Co. KG 55.60 MKM Mansfelder Kupfer & Messing GmbH 22.61 Schlenk Metallfolien GmbH & Co. KG 22.61 Sundwiger Messingwerke GmbH & Co. KG 22.61
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    We will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 55.60 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by Messingwerk, and an ad valorem assessment rate of 22.61 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by the six aforementioned companies which were not selected for individual examination.

    Consistent with the Department's “automatic assessment” regulation,10 for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the above-referenced companies, for which the company did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 7.30 percent,11 if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Further, because “as entered” liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the Assessment Policy Notice was intended to address, we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, or Wieland and exported by other parties at the all others rate base on our determination that Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland had no shipments of subject merchandise from Germany.12

    10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

    11See Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Federal Republic of Germany, 52 FR 6997 (March 6, 1987), as amended, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany, 52 FR 35750 (April 8, 1987) (Order).

    12See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.30 percent, the all-others rate determined in the less than fair value investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. No Shipment Determination V. List of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate Is Probative for the POR Comment 2: Whether the AFA Rate Is Aberrant Comment 3: Whether the AFA Rate Is Incorrect Based on Verification in the Investigation Comment 4: Whether the AFA Rate Is Supported by the Department's Rationale Comment 5: Whether the Department Provided Documentation to KL USA To Support the AFA Rate VI. Analysis of Comments VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25988 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-823] Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874 and (202) 482-5973, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The petitioners in this investigation are American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Energex (a division of JMC Steel Group), Maverick Tube Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Stupp Corporation (a division of Stupp Bros., Inc.), Tex-Tube Company, TMK IPSCO, and Welspun Tubular LLC USA. In addition to the Government of Turkey, the mandatory respondents in this investigation are Borusan Istikbal Ticaret, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim Holding A.S., and Borusan Holding A.S. (collectively, Borusan) and Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., Tosyali Elektrik Enerjisi Toptan Satis Ith. Ihr. A.S., and Tosyali Holding A.S. (collectively, Toscelik).

    The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination1 on March 20, 2015, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby incorporated in this notice.2 This memorandum also details the changes we made since the Preliminary Determination to the subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and all other producers/exporters. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 80 FR 14943 (March 20, 2015) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation covers welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences

    On April 14, 2015, Borusan notified the Department that it would not participate in the statutorily mandated verification in this investigation. By refusing to participate in verification, Borusan significantly impeded this proceeding and provided information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Thus, for the final determination, we are basing the countervailing duty (CVD) rate for Borusan on facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act. Further, because Borusan did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation, we also determine that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse facts available (AFA), we have assigned Borusan a rate of 152.20 percent. For a full discussion of this issue, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Toscelik. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an “all others” rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Where the rates for investigated companies are zero or de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs the Department to establish an “all others” rate using “any reasonable method.” As discussed above, we determined Borsuan's rate based entirely on AFA in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. Therefore, we used the rate calculated for Toscelik as the “all others” rate.

    We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Borusan Istikbal Ticaret, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim Holding A.S., and Borusan Holding A.S 152.20 Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., Tosyali Elektrik Enerjisi Toptan Satis Ith. Ihr. A.S., and Tosyali Holding A.S.3 1.31 All Others 1.31

    As a result of our affirmative Preliminary Determination, pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from Turkey which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 20, 2015, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.

    3 In its December 15, 2014, response, Toscelik stated that Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. merged with its cross-owned affiliate, Tosyali Metal Ambalaj Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali Metal). Because Tosyali Metal no longer exists as a separate entity, we have not included it in the list of companies above.

    In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after July 18, 2015, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from March 20, 2015, through July 17, 2015, as appropriate.

    We will issue a CVD order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation in accordance with our final determination and under section 706(a) of the Act if the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, and we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    The welded line pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and 7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IV. Subsidies Valuation Information V. Benchmark Interest Rates VI. Analysis of Programs VII. Analysis of Comments 1. Application of AFA to Borusan 2. Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel (HRS) for Less than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR)—Whether Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. (Erdemir) and Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. (Isdemir) Are “Authorites” 3. Provision of HRS for LTAR—Using a Tier One or Tier Two Benchmark 4. Other Arguments Related to the Provision of HRS for LTAR 5. Provision of Land for LTAR 6. The Sales Denominator Used for Toscelik 7. Specificity and Countervailability of the Investment Encouragement Program: Customs Duty and Value Added Tax Exemption VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25983 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-945; C-570-946] Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders 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”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (“PC Strand”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, net countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Palmer (AD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office V or Brendan Quinn (CVD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office III; Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 and (202) 482-5848, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 1, 2015, the Department initiated 1 and the ITC instituted 2 five-year (sunset) review of the AD and CVD orders on PC Strand from the PRC,3 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to the continuation of recurrence of net countervailable subsidies. Therefore, the Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and subsidy rates likely to prevail should the orders be revoked, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) and (c) of the Act.4

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 24900 (May 1, 2015).

    2See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China; Institution of a Five-Year Review, 80 FR 24976 (May 1, 2015).

    3See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic of China, 75 FR 37382 (June 29, 2010) and Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 38977 (July 7, 2010).

    4See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 43063 (July 21, 2015) and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 53497 (September 4, 2015).

    On October 1, 2015, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on PC Strand 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 section 751(c) of the Act.5

    5See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China, 80 FR 59195 (October 1, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty orders is PC strand, produced from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both pretensioned and post-tensioned) applications. The product definition encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all types, grades, and diameters of PC strand. PC strand is normally sold in the United States in sizes ranging from 0.25 inches to 0.70 inches in diameter. PC strand made from galvanized wire is only excluded from the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide coating meets or exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft2 standard set forth in ASTM-A-475. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under subheadings 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and net countervailable subsidies, and of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on PC Strand from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD 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 orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    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: October 6, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25978 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Water Infrastructure Business Development Mission to Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines July 14-22, 2016. AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing an Executive-led Water Infrastructure Business Development Mission to Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

    The purpose of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms and trade associations to Southeast Asia's water infrastructure markets and to assist U.S. companies to find business partners and export their products and services to the region. The mission is intended to include representatives from U.S. companies and U.S. trade associations with members that provide water infrastructure-related materials, products, services, and technology. The trade mission will visit three of Southeast Asia's most dynamic markets and will help participants gain first-hand market knowledge and establish business contacts with senior decision makers. Participating firms will gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports of products and services to Southeast Asia. The mission will include customized one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; meetings with state, local government officials (except in the Philippines) and industry leaders; and networking events.

    The mission will help participating firms and trade associations to gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goals of creating and strengthening water infrastructure programs, increasing U.S. exports of plumbing products to the region, as well as resolving waste and salinity contamination in Southeast Asia. By participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, U.S. companies will enhance their ability to secure meetings in these countries and gain greater exposure to the region through association with our diplomatic mission.

    Schedule Singapore Thursday July 14 Trade Mission Participants Arrive in Singapore.
  • Welcome and Country Briefing.
  • Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) site visit (TBC).
  • Regional Briefings.
  • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments.
  • Networking Reception at Ambassador's residence (TBC).
  • Singapore Friday July 15 One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. VietnamSaturday July 16 Travel to Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh). Vietnam Sunday July 17 Travel/Free Day Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh). Vietnam Monday July 18 Country Briefing.
  • Meeting with Saigon Water Corporation.
  • Luncheon (no-cost).
  • Site visits.
  • Meeting with City People's Committee.
  • VietnamTuesday July 19 One-on-One business matchmaking appointments.
  • Networking Reception at Consul General's residence (TBC).
  • Philippines Wednesday July 20 Travel to Manila.
  • Networking Reception.
  • Philippines Thursday July 21 Welcome and Country Briefing.
  • One-on-One business matchmaking appointments
  • Philippines Friday July 22 Meeting with Asian Development Bank Water Specialists.
  • Site Visit.
  • Mission Wrap-up.
  • Saturday July 23 Return Home.

    Web site: Please visit our official mission Web site for more information: http://export.gov/trademissions/asiawater

    Participation Requirements

    All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the DOC. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 20 firms and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.

    Fees and Expenses

    After a firm or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Interpreter and driver services can be arranged for additional cost. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.

    Participation fee for small or medium sized enterprises (SME): $3,300.00.

    Participation fee for large firms or trade associations: $4,500.00.

    Fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME/trade organization): $1,000.

    Application

    All interested firms and associations may register via the following link: https://emenuapps.ita.doc.gov/ePublic/TM/6R0T

    Exclusions

    The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation, and air transportation from the U.S. to the mission sites, between mission sites, and return to the United States. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.

    Timeline for Recruitment and Applications

    Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar (http://export.gov/trademissions) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows. Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than April 29, 2016. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and inform applicants of selection decisions periodically during the recruitment period beginning October 16, 2016. All applications received subsequent to an evaluation date will be considered at the next evaluation. Applications received after April 29, 2016, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Conditions for Participation

    The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:

    • Relevance of the company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') business to the mission goals

    • Company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') market potential for business in Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and the Philippines.

    • Provision of adequate information on the company's products and/or services, and communication of the company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') primary objectives.

    Diversity of company size and location may also be considered during the review process. Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Gemal Brangman, Project Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Tel: 202-482-3773, Fax: 202-482-9000,[email protected]

    Frank Spector, Acting Director, Trade Missions Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26013 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Sea Grant Advisory Board AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of solicitation for nominations for the National Sea Grant Advisory Board and notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice responds to Section 209 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128), which requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to solicit nominations at least once a year for membership on the National Sea Grant Advisory Board (Board), a Federal Advisory Committee that provides advice on the implementation of the National Sea Grant College Program (NSGCP) . To apply for membership to the Board, applicants should submit a current resume as indicated in the Contact Information section. A cover letter highlighting specific areas of expertise relevant to the purpose of the Board is helpful, but not required. NOAA is an equal opportunity employer.

    This notice also sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Board. Board members will discuss and provide advice on the NSGCP in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described in the agenda found on the National Sea Grant College Program Web site at http://seagrant.noaa.gov/WhoWeAre/Leadership/NationalSeaGrantAdvisoryBoard/UpcomingAdvisoryBoardMeetings.aspx.

    DATES:

    Solicitation of nominations is open ended. Resumes may be sent to the address specified at any time.

    The announced meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. HST and Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. HST.

    Individuals Selected for Federal Advisory Committee Membership: Upon selection and agreement to serve on the Board, you become a Special Government Employee (SGE) of the United States Government. According to 18 U.S.C. 202(a), an SGE is an officer or employee of an agency who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties, with or without compensation, not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, either on a fulltime or intermittent basis. Please be aware that after the selection process is complete, applicants selected to serve on the Board must complete the following actions before they can be appointed as a Board member:

    (a) Security clearance (on-line background security check process and fingerprinting), and other applicable forms, both conducted through NOAA Workforce Management; and (b) Confidential Financial Disclosure Report-As an SGE, you are required to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report annually to avoid involvement in a real or apparent conflict of interest. You may find the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following Web site. http://www.oge.gov/Forms-Library/OGE-Form-4 50--Confidential-Financial-Disclosure-Report/.

    Contact Information: Nominations will be accepted by email or mail. They should be sent to the attention of Mrs. Jennifer Hinden, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East West Highway, SSMC 3, Room 11717, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected] If you need additional assistance, call 301-734-1088.

    For any additional questions concerning the meeting, please contact Mrs. Hinden using the contact information above.

    ADDRESSES:

    The November meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel located at 2005 Kalia Road, Honolulu, HI 96815.

    Status: The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:45 a.m. HST. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.)

    The Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by Mrs. Jennifer Hinden by Friday, October 29, 2015 to provide sufficient time for the Board review. Written comments received after the deadline will be distributed to the Board, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis.

    Special Accomodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mrs. Jennifer Hinden using the information under the Contact Information section by Wednesday, October 21, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Established by Section 209 of the Act and as amended the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. ll0-394), the duties of the Board are as follows:

    (l) In general. The Board shall advise the Secretary and the National Sea Grant College Program Director (Director) concerning:

    (A) Strategies for utilizing the Sea Grant College Program to address the Nation's highest priorities regarding the understanding, assessment, development, management, utilization, and conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources;

    (B) The designation of Sea Grant Colleges and Sea Grant Institutes; and

    (C) Such other matters as the Secretary refers to the Board for review and advice.

    (2) Biennial Report. The Board shall report to the Congress every two years on the state of the National Sea Grant College Program. The Board shall indicate in each such report the progress made toward meeting the priorities identified in the strategic plan in effect under section 204(c). The Secretary shall make available to the Board such information, personnel, and administrative services and assistance as it may reasonably require to carry out its duties under this title.

    The Board shall consist of 15 voting members who will be appointed by the Secretary for a 4-year term. The Director and a director of a Sea Grant program who is elected by the various directors of Sea Grant programs shall serve as nonvoting members of the Board. Not less than 8 of the voting members of the Board shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields included in marine science. The other voting members shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in, or representative of, education, marine affairs and resource management, coastal management, extension services, State government, industry, economics, planning, or any other activity which is appropriate to, and important for, any effort to enhance the understanding, assessment, development, management, utilization, or conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. No individual is eligible to be a voting member of the Board if the individual is (A) the director of a Sea Grant College or Sea Grant Institute; (B) an applicant for, or beneficiary (as determined by the Secretary) of, any grant or contract under section 205 [33 uses § 1124]; or (C) a full-time officer or employee of the United States.

    Dated: October 1, 2015. Jason Donaldson. Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Sea Grant Advisory Board (NSGAB) Fall Meeting November 3-4, 2015 AGENDA Honolulu, HI Tuesday, November 3, 2015 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. HST 8:30-8:45 Welcome, introduction of new members, review of agenda, approval of minutes (Rollie Schmitten, Chair NSGAB) 8:45-9:00 Chair's update (R. Schmitten, NSGAB) 9:00-10:30 National Sea Grant College Program, Director's Update (Nikola Garber, Acting Director, NSGCP) 10:30-11:00 Break 11:00-12:00 Sea Grant Association Update (Sylvain DeGuise, President, Sea Grant Association) 12:00-1:15 Break for Lunch 1:15-2:00 Set the stage for afternoon discussion & Reauthorization (N. Garber, NSGCP; R. Schmitten, NSGAB; S. DeGuise, SGA) 2:00-3:00 Sea Grant Visioning & Sea Grant Roadmap (N. Garber, NSGCP; R. Schmitten, NSGAB; S. DeGuise, SGA) 3:00-3:30 Break 3:30-4:00 Program Implementation & Evaluation (PIE) (N. Garber, NSCGP) 4:00-4:30 Strategic Planning 2018-2021 (N. Garber, NSGCP) 4:30-4:45 National Ocean Sciences Bowl Discussion (R. Fortner, NSGAB) 4:45-5:00 Discussion of days topics and wrap-up (R. Schmitten, NSGAB) 5:00 Public Meeting recessed until 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, November 4, 2015 5:00-6:00 Advisory Board Business Meeting (Board Only) Wednesday, November 4, 2015 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 8:00 am-12:00 p.m. HST 8:00-8:45 Call to Order and follow up from previous days meeting 8:45-9:00 Public Comment Period 9:00-10:00 Charge to the Board—Review of the Sea Grant Extension—NOAA Liaison positions (D. Baker, NSGAB) 10:00-10:30 Break 10:30-11:15 Globalization of the Sea Grant Model (R. Vortmann, NSGAB) 11:15-11:45 Member Updates 11:45-12:00 Discussion of meeting topics and wrap-up (R. Schmitten, NSGAB) 12:00 Meeting Adjourned
    [FR Doc. 2015-25681 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE240 North Pacific 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 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Ecosystem Committee will meet October 29-30, 2015, in Anchorage, AK.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 29, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., finishing in the afternoon on Friday, October 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the New Federal Building, 222 W. 7th Ave., Suite 552, Anchorage, AK 99513; telephone: (907) 271-6368.

    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:

    Steve MacLean, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Thursday, October 29, 2015 Through Friday, October 30, 2015

    The agenda will include: (a) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan discussion paper, (b) NMFS draft policy on Ecosystem Based Fishery Management, and (c) the Groundfish Work Plan. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25962 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD66 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Research Activities in Central California, 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; revision of an incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, have received a request from Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue) to revise an issued Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting seabird research activities on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore in central California. Point Blue's current Authorization is effective until January 30, 2016, and authorizes the incidental harassment, by Level B harassment only, of approximately 9,871 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Current environmental conditions in the Pacific Ocean offshore California—which researchers have attributed to an impending El Nino event—have contributed to unprecedented numbers of California sea lions hauled out in areas where Point Blue conducts surveys and maintains critical infrastructure. As such, Point Blue has requested a modification to their current Authorization to increase the number of authorized take for California sea lions to continue critical operations and research. Per the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we are requesting comments on our proposal to revise the Authorization to Point Blue to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, a total of 44,871 California sea lions.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments and information on or before November 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected] Please include 0648-XD66 in the subject line. Comments sent via email to [email protected], including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here.

    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public record and NMFS will post them to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    To obtain an electronic copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document, write to the previously mentioned address, telephone the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visit the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Request

    On December 23, 2014, NMFS published a Federal Register notice of a proposed Authorization to Point Blue (79 FR 76975) and subsequently published a Federal Register notice of issuance of the Authorization on February 25, 2015 (80 FR 10066), effective from January 31, 2015, through January 30, 2016. To date, we have issued six one-year Authorizations to Point Blue, along with partners Oikonos Ecosystem Knowledge and Point Reyes National Seashore, for the conduct of the same activities from 2007 to 2015 (72 FR 71121, December 14, 2007; 73 FR 77011, December 18, 2008; 75 FR 8677, February 19, 2010; 77 FR 73989, December 7, 2012; 78 FR 66686, November 6, 2013; and 80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015).

    On September 22, 2015, NMFS received a request from Point Blue seeking to revise the Authorization issued on January 31, 2015 (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015) to increase the number of authorized take of small numbers of California sea lions from approximately 9,871 to a total of 44,871 for the duration of the current Authorization which expires on January 30, 2016. Current environmental conditions in the Pacific Ocean offshore California—which researchers have attributed to an impending El Nino event—have contributed to unprecedented numbers of California sea lions hauled out in areas where Point Blue conducts surveys and maintains critical infrastructure. As such, Point Blue has requested a modification to their current Authorization to increase the number of authorized take for California sea lions to continue their critical operations and research. This is the only requested change to the current Authorization.

    This Federal Register notice sets forth only a proposed change in the numbers of take for California sea lions. There are no other changes to the current Authorization as described in the February 25, 2015, Federal Register notice of an issued Authorization (80 FR 10066): The specified activity; description of marine mammals in the area of the specified activity; potential effects on marine mammals and their habitat; mitigation and related monitoring used to implement mitigation; reporting; estimated take by incidental harassment for Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), or Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus); negligible impact and small numbers analyses and determinations; impact on availability of affected species or stocks for subsistence uses and the period of effectiveness remain unchanged and are herein incorporated by reference.

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    Point Blue will continue to monitor and census seabird colonies; observe seabird nesting habitat; restore nesting burrows; and resupply a field station annually in central California (i.e., Southeast Farallon Island, West End Island, Año Nuevo Island, Point Reyes National Seashore, San Francisco Bay, and the Russian River in Sonoma County). The purpose of the seabird research is to continue a 30-year monitoring program of the region's seabird populations.

    NMFS outlined the purpose of Point Blue's activities in a previous notice for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014). Point Blue's activities and level of survey effort have not changed since the publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the Authorization (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015). For a more detailed description of the authorized action, we refer the reader to that notice of Authorization (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015).

    Need for Modification to the Authorization

    The Authorization requires Point Blue to monitor for marine mammals in order to implement mitigation measures to effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals. Monitoring activities consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the research areas. The monitoring reports provide dates, location, species, and the researcher's activities. The reports will also include the behavioral state of marine mammals present, numbers of animals that moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.

    Point Blue reports that between January and March, 2015, California sea lion incidental take patterns were relatively normal at the South Farallon Islands survey locations. However, during the summer of 2015, warm water conditions along the California coast in summer have resulted in more California sea lions hauling out in areas where Point Blue conducts its activities. Point Blue reports that throughout the summer months, sea lion numbers continued to grow, with greater numbers hauled out in areas where researchers have not normally recorded sea lion attendance. For example, since August 15, 2015 at the South Farallon Islands, Point Blue reports that thousands of sea lions hauled out in unusual locations high on the islands. Many California sea lions climbed onto critical infrastructure, including boat landings, a water storage structure, and main access paths.

    Point Blue reports that for the period between August 15 and September 20, 2015, they recorded 13,559 Level B harassment takes; 16 percent involved animals slowly flushing into the water, and the remaining 84 percent of recorded take involved California sea lions moving greater than one meter (3.2 feet) on land.

    During this period, Point Blue has restricted their activities as much as possible to still perform basic maintenance and monitoring duties, while trying to minimize pinniped disturbance. It is critical for Point Blue to keep the California sea lions off of these structures to prevent severe damage and ensure the safety of island staff. However, to do so would be impossible for Point Blue and its partners without disturbing a larger number of California sea lions. Thus, NMFS proposes to modify the current Authorization to increase the number of take by Level B harassment only for California sea lions to a total of 44,871 for the duration of the current Authorization which expires on January 30, 2016.

    Findings

    Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)—As required by the MMPA, for the original Authorization, NMFS determined that: (1) The required mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce the effects of the specified activities to the level of least practicable impact; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) Point Blue's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.

    Negligible Impact: For reasons stated previously in the Federal Register notices for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014) and the issued Authorization (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015), NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out California sea lions during Point Blue's activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (i.e., less than one day) and limited intensity (i.e., temporary flushing at most). NMFS does not expect Point Blue's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, abandonment of the haul out area, or stampeding, and therefore injury or mortality to occur.

    With the exception of a proposed increase in the number of authorized takes for California sea lions, no other substantive changes have occurred in the interim. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from Point Blue's survey activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers: For reasons stated previously in the Federal Register notices for the proposed authorization (79 FR 76975, December 23, 2014) and the issued Authorization (80 FR 10066, February 25, 2015), NMFS estimates that four species of marine mammals could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the proposed Authorization. With the exception of a proposed increase in authorized take for California sea lions, no other substantive changes have occurred in the interim. For California sea lions, the proposed increase in take is small relative to the population size. The revised incidental harassment number represents approximately 15.1 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential effects to the human environment from the issuance of a proposed Authorization to Point Blue for their seabird research activities. In January 2014, NMFS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the issuance of an Authorization for Point Blue's research activities in accordance with section 6.01 of the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). No substantive changes have occurred in the interim.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)—No marine mammal species listed under the ESA occur in the action area. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required. No substantive changes have occurred in the interim.

    Request for Public Comments

    NMFS invites comment on the proposed revised Incidental Harassment Authorization to Point Blue. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform NMFS' final decision on Point Blue's request for a revised Authorization.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25942 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Groundfish Tagging Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to John Clary, (206) 526-4039 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The groundfish tagging program provides scientists with information necessary for effective conservation, management, and scientific understanding of the groundfish fishery off Alaska and the Northwest Pacific. The program area includes the Pacific Ocean off Alaska (the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area, and the Alexander Archipelago of Southeast Alaska), California, Oregon, and Washington. Fish movement information from recovered tags is used in population dynamics models for stock assessment. There are two general categories of tags. Simple plastic tags (spaghetti tags) are external tags approximately two inches long, printed with code numbers. When a tag is returned, the tag number is correlated with databases of released, tagged fish to determine the net movement and growth rate of the tagged fish. Archival tags are microchips with sensors encased in plastic cylinders that record the depth, temperature or other data, which can be downloaded electronically from the recovered tags. The groundfish tagging and tag recovery program is part of the fishery resource assessment and data collection that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducts under the Magnuson-Stevens Act authority as codified in 16 U.S.C. 1801 (a)(8).

    II. Method of Collection

    This is a volunteer program requiring the actual tag from the fish to be returned, along with recovery information. Reporting forms with pre-addressed and postage-free envelopes are distributed to processors and catcher vessels.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0276.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local, or tribal government; business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 265.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes for returning a regular tag, and 20 minutes for returning an internal archival tag.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 59.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25848 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE231 Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce that the Proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Proposed Plan) is available for public review and comment. The Proposed Plan addresses the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) listed as threatened under the ESA. The geographic area covered by the Proposed Plan is the Pacific Ocean and freshwater habitat (rivers, streams and lakes) from the Necanicum River near Seaside, Oregon, on the northern end to the Sixes River near Port Orford, Oregon on the south. As required under the ESA, the Proposed Plan contains objective, measurable delisting criteria, site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the Proposed Plan's goals, and estimates of the time and costs required to implement recovery actions. We are soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the Proposed Plan.

    DATES:

    We will consider and address, as appropriate, all substantive comments received during the comment period. Comments on the Proposed Plan must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific daylight time on December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the Public Draft Recovery Plan by the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via: [email protected] Please include “Comments on Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan” in the subject line of the email.

    Facsimile: (503) 872-2737.

    Mail: Robert Walton, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.

    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    Electronic copies of the Proposed Plan are available on the NMFS Web site at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/oregon_coast/oregon_coast_recovery_plan.html. Persons wishing to obtain an electronic copy on CD ROM of the Proposed Plan may do so by calling Nancy Johnson at (503) 230-5442 or by emailing a request to [email protected] with the subject line “CD ROM Request for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Walton, NMFS Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Coordinator, at (503) 231-2285, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    We are responsible for developing and implementing recovery plans for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Recovery means that the listed species and their ecosystems are sufficiently restored, and their future secured, to the point that the protections of the ESA are no longer necessary. Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that recovery plans include, to the maximum extent practicable: (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for each listed species unless such a plan would not promote its recovery.

    We believe it is essential to have local support of recovery plans by those whose activities directly affect the listed species and whose continued commitment and leadership will be needed to implement the necessary recovery actions. We therefore support and participate in locally led, collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans that involve state, tribal, and Federal entities, local communities, and other stakeholders. We have determined that this Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon meets the statutory requirements for a recovery plan and are proposing to adopt it as the ESA recovery plan for this threatened species. Section 4(f) of the ESA, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided prior to final approval of a recovery plan. This notice solicits comments on this Proposed Plan.

    Development of the Proposed Plan

    For the purpose of recovery planning for the ESA-listed species of Pacific salmon and steelhead in Idaho, Oregon and Washington, NMFS designated five geographically based “recovery domains.” The Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU spawning range is in the Oregon Coast domain. For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists, nominated for their geographic and species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The Oregon and Northern California Coasts Technical Recovery Team (TRT) included scientists from NMFS, other Federal agencies, the state of Oregon, and the private sector.

    A primary task for the Oregon and Northern California Coasts Technical Recovery Team was to recommend criteria for determining when the ESU should be considered viable (i.e., when they are have a low risk of extinction over a 100-year period) and when the ESU would have a risk of extinction consistent with no longer needing the protections of the ESA. All Technical Recovery Teams used the same biological principles for developing their recommendations; these principles are described in the NOAA technical memorandum Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al., 2000). Viable salmonid populations (VSP) are defined in terms of four parameters: abundance, productivity or growth rate, spatial structure, and diversity.

    For this Proposed Plan, we collaborated with state, tribal and Federal scientists and resource managers and stakeholders to provide technical information that NMFS used to write the Proposed Plan which is built upon locally-led recovery efforts.

    The Proposed Plan, including the recovery plan modules, is now available for public review and comment.

    Contents of Proposed Plan

    The Proposed Plan contains biological background and contextual information that includes description of the ESU, the planning area, and the context of the plan's development. It presents relevant information on ESU structure, biological status and proposed biological viability criteria and threats criteria for delisting.

    The Proposed Plan also describes specific information on the following: Current status of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon; limiting factors and threats for the full life cycle that contributed to the species decline; recovery strategies and actions addressing these limiting factors and threats; key information needs, and a proposed research, monitoring, and evaluation program for adaptive management. For recovery strategies and actions, Chapter 6 in the Proposed Plan includes proposed actions at the ESU and strata levels. Population level information will be posted on the recovery plan Web site (see below). The plan also describes how implementation, prioritization of actions, and adaptive management will proceed at the population, strata, and ESU scales. The Proposed Plan also summarizes time and costs (Chapter 7) required to implement recovery actions. In addition to the information in the Proposed Plan, readers are referred to the recovery plan Web site for more information on all these topics. (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/oregon_coast/oregon_coast_salmon_recovery_domain.html)

    How NMFS and Others Expect To Use the Plan

    With approval of the final Plan, we will commit to implement the actions in the Plan for which we have authority and funding; encourage other Federal and state agencies and tribal governments to implement recovery actions for which they have responsibility, authority and funding; and work cooperatively with the public and local stakeholders on implementation of other actions. We expect the Plan to guide us and other Federal agencies in evaluating Federal actions under ESA section 7, as well as in implementing other provisions of the ESA and other statutes. For example, the Plan will provide greater biological context for evaluating the effects that a proposed action may have on a species by providing delisting criteria, information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors, and information on how future populations within the ESU can tolerate varying levels of risk.

    When we are considering a species for delisting, the agency will examine whether the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this examination, we will use the delisting criteria described in Chapter 4 of the Plan, which includes both biological criteria and criteria addressing each of the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors, as well as any other relevant data and policy considerations.

    We will also work with the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan Implementation Team described in the Proposed Plan to develop implementation schedules that provide greater specificity for recovery actions to be implemented over three-to five-year periods. This Team will also help promote implementation of recovery actions and subsequent implementation schedules, and will track and report on implementation progress.

    Conclusion

    Section 4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, (1) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. We conclude that the Proposed Plan meets the requirements of ESA section 4(f) and are proposing to adopt it as the ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon.

    Public Comments Solicited

    We are soliciting written comments on the Proposed Plan. All substantive comments received by the date specified above will be considered and incorporated, as appropriate, prior to our decision whether to approve the plan. We will issue a news release announcing the adoption and availability of the final plan. We will post on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site (www.wcr.noaa.gov) a summary of, and responses to, the comments received, along with electronic copies of the final plan and its appendices.

    Literature Cited McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS NWFSC 42, 156 p. Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25866 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2013-0032] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Separation and Retirement Division (DPSOR), Air Force Personnel Center, ATTN: Gail Weber, 550 C Street West, Suite 3, Joint Base San Antonio, TX 78150-4713 or call 210-565-2461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Request for Approval of Foreign Government Employment of Air Force Members; OMB Control Number 0701-0134.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is to obtain the information needed by the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of State on which to base a decision to approve/disapprove a request to work for a foreign government. This approval is specified by Title 37, United States Code, Section 908. This statute delegates such approval authority of Congress to the respective service secretaries and to the Secretary of State.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 10.

    Number of Respondents: 10.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 10.

    Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are Air Force retired members and certain Reserve members who have gained jobs with a foreign government and who must obtain approval of the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of State to do so. Information, in the form of a letter, includes a detailed description of duty, name of employer, Social Security Number, and statements specifying whether or not the employee will be compensated; declaring if the employee will be required or plans to obtain foreign citizenship; declaring that the member will not be required to execute an oath of allegiance to the foreign government; verifying that the member understands that that retired pay equivalent to the amount received from the foreign government may be withheld if he or she accepts employment with a foreign government before receiving approval. Reserve members only must include a request to be reassigned to Inactive Status List Reserve Section (Reserve Section Code RB). After verifying the status of the individual, the letter is forwarded to the Air Force Review Board for processing. If the signed letter is not included in the file, individuals reviewing the file cannot furnish the necessary information to the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of State on which a decision can be made. Requested information is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Request for Approval of Foreign Government Employment Program.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25908 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID USAF-2014-0014] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFOSR/RSPP, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 325, Room 3112, Arlington, VA 22203.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DoD National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships Program; National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Application; OMB Control Number 0701-0154.

    Needs and Uses: Support of Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, 10 U.S.C. 2191, states that “the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations providing for the award of fellowships to citizens and nationals of the United States who agree to pursue graduate degrees in science, engineering or other fields of study designed by the Secretary (Of Defense) to be priority interest to the DoD. Recipients shall be selected on the basis of nationwide competition. The DoD is committed to increasing the number of quality of the nation's scientists and engineers. Application information will be used for evaluation and selection of students to be awarded fellowships. Failure to respond renders the student ineligible for a fellowship.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 36,000 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 3,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 3,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 12 hours.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents are students enrolled in doctoral programs in science and engineering desiring to complete their education. The on-line, electronic application provides information necessary for evaluation and selection of fellowships.

    The NDSEG fellowships allow recipients to pursue their graduate studies at whichever United States institution they choose to attend. The goal is to provide the United States with talented, doctorally trained American men and women who will lead state of the art research projects in disciplines having the greatest payoff to national defense requirements. Approximately 190-200 3-year fellowships are anticipated to be awarded in the fields of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Cognitive, Neural, and Behavioral Sciences, Computer and Computational Sciences, Electrical Engineering, Geosciences, Material Science and Engineering, Mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Oceanography, and Physics.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25815 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2012-0023] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to HQ USAFA/RRS, ATTN: Patty Edmond, 2304 Cadet Drive, Suite 2400, USAF Academy, CO 80840 or call 719-333-3358.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Nomination For Appointment To The United States Military Academy, Naval Academy or Air Force Academy, DD FORM 1870; United States Air Force Drug and Alcohol Abuse Certificate, AF Form 2030; Application for Appointment to the United States Air Force Academy, AF Form 1786; United States Air Force Academy Candidate Writing Sample, USAFA Form 0-878; United States Air Force Academy School Official's Evaluation of Candidate, USAFA Form 145; United States Air Force Academy Candidate Personal Data Record, USAFA Form 146, United States Air Force Academy Candidate Activities Record, USAFA Form 147; United States Air Force Academy Request for Secondary School Transcript, USAFA Form 148; Air Force Academy PreCandidate Questionairre, USAFA Form 149; and Candidate Fitness Assessment, USAFA Form 158; OMB Control Number 0701-0026.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to determine which candidates have been nominated by their Congress person or Senator; to evaluate background and aptitude for commissioned service; to provide a candidate's participation in athletic and non-athletic extracurricular activities, family and personal background, and academic and school background data by a candidate's high school official. This data collection also includes eligibility by verification of age, U.S. citizenship, law infractions, schooling beyond high school, previous active duty tours, and previous applications to service academies. Without this information it would be difficult to accurately determine a candidate's leadership, academic, physical abilities and if an initial applicant would qualified to enter the candidate phase of the process. Final USAF Academy selections could not be made if reviewing committees are not able to determine whether basic requirements have or have not been met.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households, Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 117,570.

    Number of Respondents: 58,785.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 58,785.

    Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are candidates applying to the Air Force Academy, instructors of candidates, and their high school counselors. Information collection is necessary in order to determine which candidates have been nominated by their Congress person or Senator; to evaluate background and aptitude for commissioned service; to provide a candidate's participation in athletic and non-athletic extracurricular activities, family and personal background, and academic and school background data by a candidate's high school official. This data also includes eligibility by verification of age, U.S. citizenship, law infractions, schooling beyond high school, previous active duty tours, and previous applications to service academies. It is also necessary in order to provide a candidate opportunity to show through English, Math, or other instructors that they can meet Air Force academic performance. This data allows the selection panel to evaluate the “whole person” concept. Without this information it would be difficult to accurately determine if an initial applicant would be qualified to enter into the candidate phase of the process. It would also be difficult to accurately determine a candidate's leadership abilities, physical stamina, and academic abilities. Final USAF Academy selections could not be made if reviewing committees are not able to determine if basic requirements have or have not been met.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25956 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID USAF-2015-HQ-0005] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board, Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB), 8034 Edgerton Drive, Suite 132, USAF Academy, CO 80840-2200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DoDMERB Report of Medical Examination; DD Forms 2351, 2369, 2370, 2372, 2374, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381, 2382, 2489, and 2492; OMB Control Number 0704-0396.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to determine the medical qualification of applicants to the five Service academies, the four-year Reserve Officer Training Corps College Scholarship Program, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force Scholarship and Non-Scholarship Programs. The collection of medical history of each applicant is to determine if applicants meet medical standards outlined in the Department of Defense Directive 6130.3, Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction.

    Affected Public: Individuals of households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 45,000.

    Number of Respondents: 45,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 45,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 60 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are individuals who are interested in applying to attend one of the five Service academies, the four-year Reserve Officer Training Corps Scholarship Program, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, or Army, Navy, and Air Force Scholarship and Non-Scholarship Programs.

    The completed forms are processed through medical reviewers representing their respective services to determine a medical qualification status. Associated forms may or may not be required depending on the medical information contained in the medical examination. If the medical examination and associated forms, if necessary, are not accomplished, individuals reviewing the medical examination cannot be readily assured of the medical qualifications of the individual. Without this process the individual applying to any of these programs could not have a medical qualification determination. It is essential that individuals have a medical qualification determination to ensure compliance with the physical standards established for each respective military service program.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25961 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Global Positioning System Directorate (GPSD) Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Global Positioning System Directorate (GPSD)

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting—2015 Public Interface Control Working Group and Open Forum for the NAVSTAR GPS public documents

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public that the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Directorate will host the 2015 Public Interface Control Working Group and Open Forum on 9 and 10 December 2015 for the following NAVSTAR GPS public documents: IS-GPS-200 (Navigation User Interfaces), IS-GPS-705 (User Segment L5 Interfaces), and IS-GPS-800 (User Segment L1C Interface). Additional logistical details can be found below.

    The purpose of this meeting is to update the public on GPS public document revisions and collect issues/comments for analysis and possible integration into future GPS public document revisions. All outstanding comments on the GPS public documents will be considered along with the comments received at this year's open forum in the next revision cycle. The 2015 Interface Control Working Group and Open Forum are open to the general public. For those who would like to attend and participate, we request that you register no later than November 23, 2015. Please send the registration information to [email protected] or [email protected], providing your name, organization, telephone number, mailing and email addresses, and country of citizenship.

    Comments will be collected, catalogued, and discussed as potential inclusions to the version following the current release. If accepted, these changes will be processed through the formal directorate change process for IS-GPS-200, IS-GPS-705, and IS-GPS-800. All comments must be submitted in a Comments Resolution Matrix (CRM). These forms along with current versions of the documents and the official meeting notice are posted at: http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/.

    Please submit comments to the SMC/GPS Requirements (SMC/GPER) mailbox at [email protected] or to Bruce Charest at [email protected] by November 23, 2015. Special topics may also be considered for the Public Open Forum. If you wish to present a special topic, please coordinate with SMC/GPER or Capt Robyn Anderson no later than November 23, 2015. For more information, please contact Capt Robyn Anderson at 310-653-3064 or Daniel Godwin at 310-653-3640.

    Table of Contents • DATES: • ADDRESSES: • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    DATES:

    Date/Time: 9-10 Dec. 2015, 0830-1600 * (Pacific Standard Time P.S.T.).

    Registration/check-in on 9 Dec. 2015 will begin at 0800 hours.

    ADDRESSES:

    Salient Facility: * 121 North Douglas Street, El Segundo, CA 90245, Rooms 3 & 4.

    Dial-In Information and Location: Phone Number: 1-310-653-0103. Code: 1040#.

    * Identification will be required at the entrance of the Salient facility (e.g., Passport, state ID or Federal ID).

    Salient Facility Phone Number: 1-424-666-3395.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Captain Robyn Anderson, [email protected], (310) 653-3064. Daniel Godwin, [email protected], (310) 653-3640.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Liaison Officer, DAF.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25917 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID USA-2015-HQ-0043] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to alter system of records notice, A0027-40 CE, Corps of Engineers Case Management Information Files. This system allows the Corps of Engineers' legal offices to manage legal work and to identify and contact individuals involved in litigation, contract claims and appeals, procurement fraud, potentially responsible party negotiations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act; and patents and technology transfer, involving the Corps of Engineers.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before November 12, 2015. This proposed action will be effective on the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22315-3860 or by phone at 703-428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on July 17, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0027-40 CE System name:

    Corps of Engineers Case Management Information Files (September 19, 1994, 59 FR 47843)

    Changes: System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Central Processing Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, with input and access locations at all Corps of Engineers' Counsel Offices. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of system of records notices or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records relating to litigation, contract claims and appeals, procurement fraud, potentially responsible party negotiations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and patents and technology transfer, involving the Corps of Engineers; including names, addresses and phone numbers of individuals; docket or contract number; office symbol; file number; case name; the forum name; title of action; date of action; type of action; category of action; status of the action; disposition of action; summaries of the action; action number; amount of award; project name and location; remedies or relief requested; milestones and suspense dates; title of invention; and royalty information.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 15 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade; 31 U.S.C. 3729 False Claims; and 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (1980), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.”

    Purpose:

    Delete entry and replace with “To allow the Corps of Engineers legal offices to manage legal work and to identify and contact individuals involved in litigation, contract claims and appeals, procurement fraud, potentially responsible party negotiations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act; and patents and technology transfer, involving the Corps of Engineers.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Litigation, contract claims and appeals and procurement fraud records may be disclosed to Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney's offices for use in litigation. Most of this information is filed in the courts and is therefore a public record.

    Names of companies or organizations, and their representatives, involved in potentially responsible party negotiations may be disclosed to the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, and the involved parties to facilitate potentially responsible party negotiations.

    Patent records may be disclosed to The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Department of Commerce; appropriate authorities in foreign countries, for foreign patent filings; parties to a licensing arrangement for specific files involved; and contractors and government agencies, to conduct patent investigations and evaluations.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media and paper records.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “By individual's name, address and telephone number; in conjunction with the title of the action; forum name; docket or contract number; office symbol; file number; type of action; category of action; disposition of action; date of action and amount of award.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Electronic and paper records are maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized legal office personnel. Physical security differs from site to site, but the automated records are maintained in controlled areas accessible only by authorized personnel. Access to electronic records is restricted by use of common access cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The system and electronic backups are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Chief Counsel, ATTN: CECC-ZB, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    Individuals must provide full name, current address and telephone number, category of record (litigation, contract claims and appeals, procurement fraud, potentially responsible party negotiations, patents or technology transfer) and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECC-ZB, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    Individual must provide full name, current address and telephone number, category of record (litigation, contract claims and appeals, procurement fraud, potentially responsible party negotiations, patents or technology transfer) and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “From documents provided by the individual, his/her attorney, court records, Army records, investigation reports, other Federal agencies, and state and local agencies.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-25972 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2015-HQ-0042] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army (OAA-AAHS), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118, ATTN: CEIWR-NDC-C (Mickey LaMaca), or call Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 428-6440.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and Omb Number: Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) Program; ENG Form 7513; OMB Control Number 0710-0013.

    Needs and Uses: The Corps uses the data from the program to satisfy its mission. The Corps is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the nation's waterway system to ensure efficient and safe passage of commercial and recreational vessels. The support and management of economically sound navigation projects are dependent upon reliable navigation data as mandated by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1043), as amended and codified in 33 U.S.C. 555. The data collected on the form provides baseline, essential waterborne transportation information necessary for the Corps to perform its mission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Annual Burden Hours: 17,000.

    Number of Respondents: 14,300.

    Responses per Respondent: 6.8.

    Annual Responses: 97,240.

    Average Burden per Response: 11 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    On September 28, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated the U.S. Army corps of Engineers (Corps) as the “central collection agency” for the U.S. Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics Program effective October 1, 1998. The U.S. Bureau of Census (Census) was previously responsible for this program. As central collection agency for foreign waterborne transportation statistics, the Corps is responsible for meeting the needs of other federal agencies that require these data. The Maritime Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis also require these data.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25945 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5006-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0073] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 3330 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3330.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Application for Priority rating for Production or Construction Equipment, DD Form 691, OMB Number 0704—0055.

    Needs and Uses: Executive Order 12919 delegates to DoD authority to require certain contracts and orders relating to approved Defense Programs to be accepted and performed on a preferential basis. This program helps contractors acquire industrial equipment in a timely manner, thereby facilitating development and support of weapons systems and other important Defense Programs.

    Affected Public: Business or Other for-Profit; Non-Profit Institutions; Federal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 610.

    Number of Respondents: 610.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 610.

    Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Summary of Information Collection: This information is used so the authority to use a priority rating in ordering a needed item can be granted. This is done to assure timely availability of production or construction equipment to meet current Defense requirements in peacetime and in case of national emergency. Without this information DoD would not be able to assess a contractor's stated requirement to obtain equipment needed for fulfillment of contractual obligations. Submission of this information is voluntary.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25854 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2012-HA-0145] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to TRICARE Management Activity Program, Policy and Benefits Branch, Attn: Mr. Jody Donehoo, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 220141-3206, or call (703) 681-0039.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Continued Health Care Benefit Program; DD Form 2837; OMB Control Number 0704-0364.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary for individuals to apply for enrollment in the Continued Health Care Benefit Program (CHCBP). The CHCBP is a program of temporary health care benefit coverage that is made available to eligible individuals who lose health care coverage under the Military Health System (MHS).

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 625.

    Number of Respondents: 2,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 0.25 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are individuals who are or were beneficiaries of the Military Health System (MHS) and who desire to enroll in the CHCBP following their loss of entitlement to health care coverage in the MHS. These beneficiaries include the active duty service member or former service member (who, for purposes of this notice shall be referred to as “service member”), an unmarried former spouse of a service member, an unmarried child of a service member who ceases to meet requirements for being considered a dependent, and a child placed for adoption or legal custody with the service member. In order to be eligible for health care coverage under CHCBP, an individual must first enroll in CHCBP. DD Form 2837 is used as the information collection vehicle for that enrollment. The CHCBP is a legislatively mandated program and it is anticipated that the program will continue indefinitely.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25937 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2008-HA-0180] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Appeals, Hearings and Claims Collection Division, Office of General Counsel, TRICARE® Management Activity, ATTN: Mark P. Donahue, 16401 East Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011-9066, or via telephone at (303) 676-3411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Professional Qualifications Medical/Peer Reviewers, CHAMPUS Form 780, OMB Control Number 0720-0005.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record the professional qualifications of medical and peer reviewers utilized within TRICARE®. The form is included as an exhibit in an appeal or hearing case file as evidence of the reviewer's professional qualifications to review the medical documentation contained in the case file.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Annual Burden Hours: 20.

    Number of Respondents: 60.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 60.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are medical professionals who provide medical and peer review of cases appealed to the Office of Appeals, Hearings and Claims Collection Division, Office of General Counsel, TRICARE® Management Activity. CHAMPUS Form 780 records the professional qualifications of the medical or peer reviewer. The completed form is included as an exhibit in the appeal or hearing case file, and documents for anyone reviewing the file, the professional qualifications of the medical professional who reviewed the case. If the form is not included in the case file, individuals reviewing the file cannot be readily assured of the qualifications of the reviewing medical professional. Having qualified professionals provide medical and peer review is essential in maintaining the integrity of the appeal and hearing process.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25953 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Business Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    DoD.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Business Board. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The public meeting of the Defense Business Board (“the Board”) will be held on Thursday, October 22, 2015. The meeting will begin at 1:15 p.m. and end at 2:30 p.m. (Escort required; see guidance in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting.”)

    ADDRESSES:

    Room 3E863 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC (Escort required; See guidance in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting.”)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) is Ms. Roma Laster, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155, [email protected], 703-695-7563. For meeting information please contact Mr. Steven Cruddas, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155, [email protected], (703) 697-2168. For submitting written comments or questions to the Board, send via email to mailbox address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Defense Business Board was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of October 22, 2105, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Board will hear updates from the Task Groups on “Logistics as a Competitive War Fighting Advantage;” “Creating Virtual Consultancies: Engaging Talent (Innovative Culture Part II;” and “Evaluation of Position of Under Secretary of Defense, Business Management and Information.”

    The mission of the Board is to examine and advise the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD management and governance. The Board provides independent advice which reflects an outside private sector perspective on proven and effective best business practices that can be applied to DoD.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda and the terms of reference for each Task Group study may be obtained from the Board's Web site at http://dbb.defense.gov/. Copies will also be available at the meeting.

    Meeting Agenda:

    1:15 p.m.-1:20 p.m.—Opening remarks 1:20 p.m.-1:35 p.m.—Task Group Update on “Logistics as a Competitive War Fighting Advantage” 1:35 p.m.-1:50 p.m.—Task Group Update on “Creating Virtual Consultancies: Engaging Talent (Innovative Culture Part II)” 1:50 p.m.-2:05 p.m.—Task Group Update on “Evaluation of Position of Under Secretary of Defense, Business Management and Information” 2:05 p.m.-2:15 p.m.—Public Comments (if time permits) 2:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.—Board Deliberations

    Written public comments are strongly encouraged.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140 this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Steven Cruddas at the phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 12 p.m. on Friday, October 16, 2015 to register and make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 12:45 p.m. on October 22. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Cruddas at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Board about its mission and topics pertaining to this public meeting.

    Written comments should be received by the DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the email address for public comments given in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please note that since the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Board's Web site.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25939 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0080] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (Military Community and Family Policy), ATTN: Mr. James M. Ellis, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 or call at (703) 602-5009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; And OMB Number: Application for Discharge of Member or Survivor of Member of Group Certified to Have Performed Active Duty with the Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 2168, OMB Control Number 0704-0100.

    Needs And Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to implement section 401 of Public Law 95-202 (codified at 38 U.S.C. 106 Note), which directs the Secretary of Defense: (1) To determine if civilian employment or contractual service rendered to the Armed Forces of the United States by certain groups shall be considered Active Duty services, and (2) to award members of approved groups an appropriate certificate where the nature and duration of service so merits. This information is collected on DD Form 2168, “Application for Discharge of Member of Group Certified to have Performed Active Duty with the Armed Forces of the United States,” which provides the necessary data to assist each of the Military Departments in determining if an applicant was a member of a group which has performed active military service. Those individuals who have been recognized as members of an approved group shall be eligible for benefits administered by the Veteran's Administration.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,350 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 2,700.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,700.

    Average Burden per Response: 5 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Section 401 of Public Law 95-202 (codified at 38 U.S.C. 106 Note) authorized the Secretary of Defense: (1) To determine if civilian employment or contractual service rendered to the Armed Forces of the United States by certain groups shall be considered active duty service, and (2) to issue members of approved groups an appropriate certificate of service where the nature and duration of service so warrants. Such persons shall be eligible for benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The information collected on DD Form 2168, “Application for Discharge of Member or Survivor of Member Group Certified To Have Performed Duty with the Armed Forces of the United States,” is necessary to assist the Secretaries of the Military Departments in: (1) Determining if an applicant was a member of an approved group that performed civilian employment or contractual service for the U.S. Armed Forces and (2) to assist in issuing an appropriate certificate of service to the applicant. Information provided by the applicant will include: The name of the group served with; dates and place of service; highest grade/rank/rating held during service; highest pay grade; military installation where ordered to report; specialty/job title(s). If the information requested on a DD Form 2168 is compatible with that of a corresponding approved group, and the applicant can provide supporting evidence, he or she will receive veteran's status in accordance with the provisions of DoD Directive 1000.20. Information from the DD Form 2168 will be extracted and used to complete the DD Form 214, “Certificate for Release or Discharge from Active Duty.”

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25898 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-HA-0088] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the TRICARE Dental Care Office, Health Agency (DHA), Rm 3M451, ATTN: COL Colleen C. Shull, Falls Church, VA 22042 or call (703) 681-9517, DSN 761.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) Dentist's Claim Form CONUS and TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) Dentist's Claim Form OCONUS; OMB Control Number 0720-0035.

    Needs and Uses: The TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) Claim Form(s). CONUS/OCONUS are required to gather information to make payment for legitimate dental claims and to assist in contractor surveillance and program integrity investigations and to audit financial transactions where the Department of Defense has a financial stake. The information from the claim form is also used to provide important cost-share explanations to the beneficiary.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,006,415.

    Number of Respondents: 64,930.

    Responses per Respondent: 62.

    Annual Responses: 4,025,660.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 Minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The Defense Health Agency (DHA) under the authority of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense has responsibility for management of the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) as established in Title 10, United States Code, Section 1076a. The information collected to make payment for covered dental procedures provided by a licensed dentist to an eligible beneficiary can be sent to the TDP contractor electronically, fax or mail. Approximately 35% of all TDP network dental claims are filed electronically. Dental offices and patients can download the TDP claim form from the contractor's Web site.

    For non-network dentists, to include those in overseas locations, the use of the TDP Claim Form is highly encouraged. However, dental claims will be paid if all the required information is provided on a similar claim form.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25911 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2014-OS-0081] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of Defense Education Activity, Attn: Dr. Sandra D. Embler, 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1635, or call at (703) 588-3175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; And OMB Number: Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Evaluation and Program Surveys—Generic; OMB Control Number 0704-0437.

    Needs and Uses: The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) has a need to conduct a variety of one-time surveys, interviews, and focus groups on an as-needed basis. The population for these data collections will be limited to students and parents of students attending DoDEA schools. These information collections are necessary to measure DoDEA's progress on the goals set forth in the Community Strategic Plan, and to assess parent and student input on school policies and procedures. These data collections will include, but are not limited to, school operations and procedures (such as school uniforms, transportation, school calendar), school facilities, curricular and instructional needs and effectiveness, programmatic needs and effectiveness, and extra-curricular and co-curricular activities. The information sought by these data collections will allow DoDEA to quickly have access to the information necessary to determine overall effectiveness, increase efficiency, and obtain valuable input from parents and students on new and existing policies and procedures. Data collection instruments to include burden hours and supporting documentation will be submitted to the DoD Clearance Officer and OMB for final approval as they become available.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,041.

    Number of Respondents: 2,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 25 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The following categories will be included in this data collection.

    School procedures and policies. These data collections will gather information from DoDEA students and parents on issues related to the everyday operational processes and policies of the school. These data collections will include, but will not be limited to, information on the school calendar, school uniforms, school transportation, school lunch, school facilities (i.e., gymnasiums, cafeterias, and playgrounds. These data collections will allow DoDEA to immediately identify or determine the extent of student and parent concerns and to quickly gather suggestions for improvement from parents and students.

    School curriculum. These data collections will gather information from students and parents on the curricular availability and instructional practices in DoDEA schools. These data collections will include, but will not be limited to, course offerings, availability and use of curricular materials, instructional practices, and availability and use of educational technology. These data collections will also gather information on the perceived effectiveness of the school curriculum.

    Program effectiveness and operations. These data collections will gather opinions from students and parents on the provision, needs, and effectiveness of non-curricular programs and support services, such as counseling, special education services, gifted education, English as a Second Language Services, Physical and Occupational Therapy, and in-school medical services. These data collections will help assess the extent to which support services are available and accessible, as well as help determine the effectiveness and additional needs of support programs.

    Extra-curricular and co-curricular activities. These data collections will provide information from students and parents on the availability, effectiveness, and perceived needs of school extra-curricular and co-curricular activities. These data collections will help determine the extent to which the athletic interests of DoDEA students are being met by the current offerings, and assess the effectiveness of such activities. These data collections will also help determine the extent to which the dramatic, artistic, musical, and academic interests of DoDEA students are being met, and determine the future needs of such programs.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD <E T="04">Federal Register</E> Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25817 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0100] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of Defense Education Activity, ATTN: Dr. Sandra D. Embler, 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1635, or call at (703) 588-3175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) School Accreditation Parent and Student Surveys; OMB Control Number 0704-0462.

    Needs and Uses: The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) regulation 2010.1 (Accreditation Program) requires accreditation of all DoDEA schools in order to provide the activity, the military community served by the activity, and the public at large with an external review of the quality of the educational program provided to DoDEA students. DoDEA's accreditation process is based on the processes and standards of the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI)/AdvancED. As part of the accreditation process, the interview team uses a worldwide standardized set of questions to gather data from students and parents to assess accreditation standards in the following areas: Vision and Purpose, Governance and Leadership, Teaching and Learning, Documenting and Using Results, Resources and Support Systems, Stakeholder Communications and Relationships, and Commitment to Continuous Improvement.

    Affected public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 24.

    Number of Respondents: 32.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 32.

    Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    NCA CASI/AdvancED is the largest accreditation organization in the United States, covering 30 states and 65 countries. As part of the accreditation process, NCA CASI/AdvancED conducts Quality Assurance Review (QAR) visits to DoDEA schools in February and April of each year on a rotating schedule that ensures that each school is evaluated within a 5-year cycle. The visits are two days in length in order to gather data, information, and evidence to accomplish the following:

    • Evaluate adherence to the AdvancED standards;

    • Provide high quality feedback in the form of commendations and recommendations; and

    • Determine an accreditation status recommendation.

    The Quality Assurance Review team's interview process includes students and parents/guardians. The purpose of the interview session is to help the Quality Assurance Review team gain a deeper understanding of the school improvement process. The review team uses the information to review how well each school is progressing, provide commendations on areas in which each school is excelling, and recommendations that will help each school continuously improve. The review team also uses the information gathered to make an accreditation status recommendation at the end of the visit.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25950 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2011-OS-0126] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Security Service, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Security Service announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Security Service, OCIO, Russell-Knox Building, 27130 Telegraph Road, Quantico, VA 22134-2253, or call Defense Security Service at (571) 305-6445.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: “Defense Security Service Industrial Security Review Data” and “Defense Security Service Industrial Security Facility Clearance Survey Data,” OMB Control Number 0704-0427.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to assist in determining whether a contractor is eligible to establish its facility security clearance and/or retain its participation in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP). It is also the basis for verifying whether contractors are appropriately implementing NISP security requirements. These requirements are necessary in order to preserve and maintain the security of the United States through establishing standards to prevent the improper disclosure of classified information.

    In accordance with Department of Defense (DoD), 5220.22-R, “Industrial Security Regulation,” DSS is required to maintain a record of the results of surveys and security reviews. Documentation for each survey and/or security review will be compiled addressing areas applicable to the contractor's security program. Portions of the data collected will be stored in databases. All data collected will be handled and marked “For Official Use Only.”

    Burden Information for “Industrial Security Review Data”

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 32,606.

    Possessors of Classified: 20,818. Non-Possessors of Classified: 11,788.

    Number of Respondents: 9,822.

    Possessors of Classified: 3,928. Non-Possessors of Classified: 5,894.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 9,822.

    Possessors of Classified: 3,928. Non-Possessors of Classified: 5,894.

    Average Burden per Response: Varies.

    Possessors of Classified: 5.3 hours. Non-Possessors of Classified: 2 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Burden Information for “Facility Security Clearance Survey Data”

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 5,664.

    Number of Respondents: 2,832.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,832.

    Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Total Burden Information

    Annual Burden Hours: 38,270.

    Number of Respondents: 12.654.

    DSS is the office of record for the maintenance of information pertaining to contractor facility clearance records and industrial security information regarding cleared contractors under its cognizance. To the extent possible, information required as part of the survey or security review is obtained as a result of observation by the representative of the Cognizant Security Agency or its designated Cognizant Security Office. Some of the information may be obtained based on conferences with Key Management Personnel and/or other employees of the company. The information is used to respond to all inquiries regarding the facility clearance status and classified information storage capability of cleared contractors. It is also used to assess and/or advise Government Contracting Activities regarding any particular contractor's continued ability to protect classified information.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25902 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0042] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense Education Activity (Human Resources Regional Center), ATTN: Patti Ross, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350 or call (571) 372-0787.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) Employment Opportunities for Educators; DoDEA Forms 5010, 5011, and 5013; OMB Control Number 0704-0370.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain information on prospective applicants for educator positions with the Department of Defense Dependents Schools. The information is used to verify employment history of educator applicants and to determine creditable previous experience for pay-setting purposes on candidates selected for positions. In addition, the information is used to ensure that those individuals selected for employment with the Department of Defense Dependents Schools possess the abilities which give promise of outstanding success under the unusual circumstances they will find working abroad. Completion of all forms is entirely voluntary.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 22,500.

    Number of Respondents: 54,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 54,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 25 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The primary objective of the information collection is to screen applicants for educational qualification and employment eligibility, to obtain pertinent evaluation information about an applicant to assist management in making a hiring decision, and to obtain applicant consent to obtain personal information from former employers about applicants' employment. The forms associated with this data collection include: (1) Department of Defense Dependents Schools Supplemental Application for Overseas Employment (DoDEA Form 5010). The primary objective of this voluntary form is to ascertain applicants' eligibility for educator positions. (2) Department of Defense Dependents Schools Professional Evaluation (DoDEA Form 5011). This form is provided to officials who served in managerial and supervisory positions above the applicant as a means of verifying abilities and qualifications of applicants for educator positions. (3) Department of Defense Dependents Schools Verification of Professional Educator Employment for Salary Rating Purposes (DoDEA Form 5013). The purpose of this voluntary form is to verify employment history of educator applicants and to determine creditable previous experience for pay-setting purposes. The paper forms and electronic data systems containing the sponsor and dependent personally identifying information are secured in accordance with the requirements of Federal law and implementing DoD regulations.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25843 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0095] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Logistics Agency announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency, U.S./Canada Joint Certification Office, DLA Logistics Information Service-BFC, Attn: George A. Bredehoft, Federal Center, 74 Washington Ave. N., Battle Creek, MI 49017-3084; or call (269) 961-5339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, DD Form 2345, OMB Control Number 0704-0207.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary as a basis for certifying enterprises or individuals to have access to DoD export-controlled militarily critical technical data subject to the provisions of 32 CFR 250. Enterprises and individuals that need access to unclassified DoD-controlled militarily critical technical data must certify on DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, that data will be used only in ways that will inhibit unauthorized access and maintain the protection afforded by U.S. export control laws. The information collected is disclosed only to the extent consistent with prudent business practices, current regulations, and statutory requirements and is so indicated on the Privacy Act Statement of DD Form 2345.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households; businesses or other for profit; not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2666.

    Number of Respondents: 8,000.

    Responses Per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 0.33 hours (20 minutes).

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Use of DD Form 2345 permits U.S. and Canada defense contractors to certify their eligibility to obtain certain unclassified technical data with military and space applications. Nonavailability of this information prevents defense contractors from accessing certain restricted databases and obstructs conference attendance where restricted data will be discussed. The form is available on the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) Web page and DLA Logistics Information Services Web page.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25929 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0078] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Military Personnel Policy), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Military Personnel Policy) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http:// www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (Military Personnel Policy), ATTN: MAJ Justin DeVantier, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 or call at (703) 695-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Request for Reference; DD Form 370; OMB Control Number 0704-0167.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain personal reference data, in order to request a waiver, on a military applicant who has committed a civil or criminal offense and would otherwise be disqualified for entry into the Armed Forces of the United States. The DD Form 370 is used to obtain references information evaluating the character, work habits, and attitudes of an applicant from a person of authority or standing within the community.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or Households; State, Local, or Tribal government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,083.

    Number of Respondents: 6,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 6,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    This information is collected to provide Armed Services with specific background information on an applicant. History of criminal activity, arrests, or confinement is disqualifying for military service. An applicant, with such a disqualifier, is required to submit references from community leaders who will attest to his or her character, attitudes or work habits. The DD Form 370 is the method of information collection which requests an evaluation and reference from a specific individual, within the community, who has the knowledge of the applicant's habits, behavior, personality, and character. The information will be used to determine suitability of the applicant for military service and the issuance of a waiver for acceptance.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25874 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-HA-0004] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Health Agency, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems, 16401 East Centretech Parkway, ATTN: Elan Green, Aurora, CO 80011-9043, or call Defense Health Agency, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Office, at (303) 676-3907.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for TRICARE-Provider Status: Corporation Services Provider; DD Form X644; OMB Control Number 0720-0020.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to allow eligible providers to apply for Corporate Services Provider status under the TRICARE program.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 100.

    Number of Respondents: 300.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 300.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    On March 10, 1999, TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), formerly known as OCHAMPUS, published a final ruse in the Federal Register (64 FR 11765), creating a fourth class of TRICARE providers consisting of freestanding corporations and foundations that render principally professional ambulatory or in-home care and technical diagnostic procedures. Effective October 1, 2013, the TRICARE Management Activity is now the Defense Health Agency (DHA). The intent of the rule was not to create additional benefits that ordinarily would not be covered under TRICARE if provided by a more traditional healthcare delivery system, but rather to allow those services which would otherwise be allowed except for an individual provider's affiliation with a freestanding corporate facility. The addition of the corporate class recognized the current range of providers within today's health care delivery structure, and gave beneficiaries access to another segment of the health care delivery industry. Corporate services providers must be approved for Medicare payment, or when Medicare approval status is not required, be accredited by a qualified accreditation organization to gain provider authorization status under TRICARE. Corporate services providers must also enter into a participation agreement which will be sent out as part of the initial authorization process. The participation agreement will ensure that TRICARE-determined allowable payments, combined with the costshare/copayment, deductible, and other health insurance amounts, will be accepted by the provider as payment in full. The application for TRICARE-Provider Status: Corporate Services Provider, will collect the necessary information to ensure that the conditions are met for authorization as a TRICARE corporate services provider: i.e., the provider (1) is a corporation or a foundation, but not a professional corporation or professional association; (2) provides services and related supplies of a type rendered by TRICARE individual professional providers or diagnostic technical services; (3) is approved for Medicare payment or, when Medicare approval status is not requested, is accredited by a qualified accreditation organization; and (4) has entered into a participation agreement approved by the Director, DHA or a designee.

    The collected information will be used by TRICARE contractors to process claims and verify authorized provider status. Verification involves collecting and reviewing copies of the provider's licenses, certificates, accreditation documents, etc. If the criteria are met, the provider is granted TRICARE authorization status. The documentation and information are collected when: (1) A provider requests permission to become a TRICARE-authorized provider; (2) a claim is filed for care received from a provider who is not listed on the contractor's computer listing of authorized providers; or (3) when a former TRICARE-authorized provider requests reinstatement. The contractors develop the forms used to gather information based on the TRICARE conditions for participation listed above. Without the collection of this information, contractors cannot determine if the provider meets TRICARE-authorization requirements for corporate services providers. If the contractor is unable to verify that a provider meets these authorization requirements, the contractor may not reimburse either the provider or the beneficiary for the provider's health care services. To reduce the reporting burden to a minimum, TRICARE has carefully selected the information requested from respondents. Only that information which has been deemed absolutely essential is being requested. If necessary, contractors may verify credentials with Medicare, JCAHO and other national organizations by telephone. TRICARE is also participating with Medicare in the development of a National Provider System which will eliminate duplication of provider certification and data collection among Federal government agencies. TRICARE contractors are required to maintain a computer listing before requesting documentation from providers. Since the providers affected by this information generally have not previously been eligible to be authorized providers, TRICARE contractors will have no information on file. The providers will have to submit the information requested on the data collection form (Application for TRICARE-Providers Status: Corporate Services Provider) in order to obtain provider authorization status under TRICARE. The information will usually be collected from each respondent only once. It is estimated that there will be approximately 300 applicants per year. TRICARE will request the provider authorization documentation and information when the provider asks to become TRICARE-authorized or when a claim is filed for a new provider's services. If after a provider has been authorized by a contractor, no claims are filed during two-year period of time, the provider's information will be placed in the inactive file. To reactivate a file, the provider must verify that the information is still correct, or supply new or changed information. The total annual reporting burden is estimated to be approximately 100 hours (approximately 300 respondents with 20 minutes to complete the form).

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25909 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-HA-0039] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form And OMB Number: Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) Reimbursement; OMB Control Number 0720-0017.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Number of Respondents: 5,600.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,600.

    Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 8,400.

    Needs And Uses: The TRICARE/CHAMPUS contractors will use the information collected to reimburse hospitals for TRICARE/CHAMPUS share of capital and direct medical education costs.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Meredith DeDona.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Meredith DeDona, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25877 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0072] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write or send an email to the DTIC-BC Registration Team, Defense Technical Information Center, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218, or email Ms. Kerry Christensen: [email protected] Ms. Christensen may be telephoned at: (703) 767-8247.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Registration for Scientific and Technical Information Services; DD Form 1540; OMB Control Number 0704-0264.

    Needs and Uses: The data that the Defense Technical Information Center handles is controlled, because of either distribution limitations or security classification. For this reason, all potential users are required to register for service. DoD Instruction 3200.14, Principles and Operational Parameters of the DoD Scientific and Technical Information Program, mandates the registration procedure. Federal Government agencies and their contractors are required to complete the DD Form 1540, Registration for Scientific and Technical Information Services. The contractor community completes a separate DD Form 1540 for each contract or grant, and registration is valid until the contract expires.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Federal Government; State, local, or tribal government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,667.

    Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 10,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The DD Form 1540 serves as a registration tool for Federal Government agencies and their contractors to access DTIC services. Potential users registering for services are required to obtain certification from a designated approving official. Collected information is verified by DTIC's Marketing and Registration Division.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25831 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2015-OS-0094] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), ATTN: Lieutenant Colonel Ronald S. Hunter, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, or call at (703) 695-3176.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/Reserve Component (RC) SBP Request for Deemed Election; DD Form 2656-10, OMB Control Number 0704-0448.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to properly identify the former spouse who is eligible to request a deemed SBP election on behalf of the member. Since a Uniformed Services member may have more than one former spouse, the requested information will serve to identify the correct former spouse.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 400.

    Number of Respondents: 1,200.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,200.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    A former spouse who has been awarded coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan either by court order or written agreement, may, within one year of such court order or written agreement, submit a request to have an election for such coverage deemed on behalf of the member. Such requests will be made by submitting the proposed form and a copy of the court order, regular on its face, which requires such election or incorporates, ratifies, or approves the written agreement of such person; or a statement from the clerk of the court (or other appropriate official) that such agreement has been filed with the court in accordance with applicable state law. A former spouse is not required to submit a request for a deemed election. However, if a request for deemed election is not submitted within the one year period described above and the members fail to elect former spouse SBP coverage, no former spouse coverage will be provided. The proposed form DD Form 2656-10, “Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/Reserve Component (RC) SBP Request for Deemed Election,” will become the prescribed form required for submitting such requests.

    Dated: October 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25849 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2014-OS-0069] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), 3400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3400, or call (703) 695-6107.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) Application, DD Form 2749, OMB Control Number 0704-0392.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to identify products or services requested by community members of restoration advisory boards or technical review committees to aid in their participation in the Department of Defense's environmental restoration program, and to meet Congressional reporting requirements.

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 200.

    Number of Respondents: 50.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 50.

    Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are community members of restoration advisory boards or technical review committees requesting technical assistance to interpret scientific and engineering issues regarding the nature of environmental hazards at an installation. This assistance will assist communities in participating in the cleanup process. The information, directed by 10 U.S.C. 2705, will be used to determine the eligibility of the proposed project, begin the procurement process to obtain the requested products or services, and determine the satisfaction of community members of restoration advisory boards and technical review communities receiving the products and services.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25847 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0071] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Contract Management Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Contract Management Agency announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Director, Defense Contract Management Agency, Attn: Gary Moorman, 6350 Walker Lane, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22310, or call Mr. Gary Moorman at (703) 254-2134.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Request for Government Approval for Aircrew Qualifications and Training, DD Form 2627 and Request for Approval of Contractor Flight Crewmember, DD Form 2628; OMB Control Number 0704-0347.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to request qualification training for contractor crewmembers. The DD Form 2628 requests approval for contractor personnel to function as a flight crewmember.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Business or Other for-Profit; Not-for-Profit Institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 7.

    Number of Respondents: 42.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 84.

    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The requirement to have government approval of contract flight crewmembers is in Defense Contract Management Agency Directive 1, Chapter 8, Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations. The contractor provides a personal history and requests the government to approve training in a particular type government aircraft (DD Form 2627). The contractor certifies the crewmember has passed a flight evaluation and, with the DD Form 2628, requests approval for the personnel to operate and fly government aircraft. Without the correct approvals, the contractor cannot use their personnel as requested.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25830 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2014-0016] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Marine Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps (MCJROTC), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Marine Corps announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Commanding General, Training and Education Command (C46JR), MCCDC, 1019 Elliott Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5001, or telephone Mr. Robert Davis at (703) 784-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Individual MCJROTC Instructor Evaluation Summary; NAVMC 10942; OMB Control Number 0703-0016.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide a written record of the overall performance of duty of MCJROTC instructors who are responsible for implementing the MCJROTC curriculum. The individual MCJROTC Instructor Evaluation Summary is completed by principles to evaluate the effectiveness of individual MCJROTC instructors. The form is further used as a performance related counseling tool and as a record of service performance to document performance and growth of individual MCJROTC instructors. Evaluating the performance of instructors is essential in ensuring that they provide quality training.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 225 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 450.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 450.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    This form provides a written record of the overall performance of duty of MCJROTC instructors who are responsible for implementing the MCJROTC curriculum. The Individual MCJROTC Instructor Evaluation Summary is completed by principles to evaluate the effectiveness of individual MCJROTC instructors.

    The form is further used as a performance related counseling tool and as a record of service performance to document performance and growth of individual MCJROTC instructors. Evaluating the performance of instructors is essential in ensuring that they provide quality training.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25949 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0120] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program General Forbearance Request AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0120. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program General Forbearance Request.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0031.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,188,770.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 175,102.

    Abstract: The Department of Education is requesting a revision of the currently approved Direct Loan General Forbearance Request form information collection. We are revising the current Direct Loan form to include the FFEL and Perkins Loan programs making it easier for borrowers to request this action. The revised form includes formatting changes and wording enhancements for clarity.

    Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25928 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0099] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions—Student Right-to-Know (SRK) AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0099. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E13, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Student Assistance General Provisions—Student Right-to-Know (SRK).

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0004.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 30,022.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 18,670.

    Abstract: Eligible participating institutions are required to provide this SRK information to all enrolled students, prospective students prior to their enrolling or entering into a financial obligation with the school as well as to institution's employees. The regulations in 34 CFR 668.41 relate to the required annual notices an institution must provide to current and prospective students and current and prospective employees as well as information that must be made available to any party who requests it, including the methods that the information may disclosed. The regulations in 34 CFR 668.45 relate to the required calculation and availability of an institution's completion or graduation rates of its certificate or degree seeking, first-time, full-time undergraduate students using the Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Web site.

    Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25927 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0118] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Grants Under the Talent Search Program Correction

    In notice document 2015-25354, appearing on pages 60358-60369 in the Issue of Tuesday, October 6, 2015, make the following correction:

    On page 60368, in the third column, under the heading DATES: the entry “December 7, 2015” is corrected to read “November 5, 2015”.

    [FR Doc. 2015-25354 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Red Lion Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99352.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Skopeck, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin Avenue, P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda: • Discussion Topics Tri-Party Agreement Agencies' Updates Hanford Advisory Board Committee Reports Board Business

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Hanford, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristen Skopeck at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Kristen Skopeck at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Kristen Skopeck's office at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on October 7, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25982 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, November 5, 2015, 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda:

    • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Approval of September Minutes • Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments • Federal Coordinator's Comments • Liaison's Comments • Presentation • Administrative Issues • Subcommittee Updates • Public Comments • Final Comments from the Board • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Greg Simonton at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Greg Simonton at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC on October 7, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25979 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-2-000.

    Applicants: CID Solar, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of CID Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5298.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-3-000.

    Applicants: Cottonwood Solar, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Cottonwood Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-21-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised Service Agreement No. 4083; Queue Y3-058 (WMPA) to be effective 9/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-22-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Second Amended and Restated Service Agreement to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5308.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-23-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PowerSouth NITSA Amendment Filing (Add Ray Delivery Point) to be effective 9/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5319.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-24-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised WMPA Service Agreement No. 3688, Queue No. Y2-117 to be effective 9/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-25-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Ministerial Filing to Incorporate Order 760 Language to be effective 3/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5337.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    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: October 5, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25916 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-169-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc., Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC, Ace Wind LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 14, 2015 Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc., et al. for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for Disposition of Jurisdiction Facilities.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-1-000.

    Applicants: Emera Incorporated, TECO Energy, Inc.

    Description: Application under FPA Section 203 of Emera Incorporated and TECO Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5344.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-2-000.

    Applicants: AltaGas Power Holdings (U.S.) Inc., GWF Energy LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of GWF Energy LLC and AltaGas Power Holdings (U.S.) Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5350.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-3-000.

    Applicants: Goodwell Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Goodwell Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5235.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-4-000.

    Applicants: Eden Solar LLC, Land of the Sky MT, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Eden Solar, LLC and Land of the Sky MT, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5280.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-4-000.

    Applicants: Greenidge Generation LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Greenidge Generation LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5290.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2074-005; ER10-2097-007.

    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.

    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2015 Updated Market Power Analysis for Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Balancing Area Authority of Kansas City Power & Light Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2114-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Transource West Virginia, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Transource submits a compliance filing on Attachment H-26 & 26A per 9/4/15 Order to be effective 9/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5295.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-26-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule Cancellations to be effective 12/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-27-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-6 NSP-GFLS-TSA-436-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-28-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Power Purchase Agreement Rate Schedule 301 of PacifiCorp.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-29-000.

    Applicants: Greenidge Generation LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR to be effective 12/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5275.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-68-000.

    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.

    Description: Revised Exhibits C, D, and E to September 4, 2015 Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Kentucky Utilities Company.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5238.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    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: October 6, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25914 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice Of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1296-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Chevron Oct2015 TEAM2014 Releases to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1297-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Devon Negotiated Rate to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1298-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: GT&C Section 46 1Line Service to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1299-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing OPEN Project 11-1-2015 In-Service Compliance Filing—CP14-68 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5276.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1300-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: OPEN Project 11-1-2015 In-Service Negotiated Rates Filing to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5281.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1301-000.

    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Tariff Filing to be effective 12/1/2012.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5306.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-247-005.

    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing RP14-247 Settlement Compliance Filing to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150928-5307.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25913 Filed 10-9-15; 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: ER10-2633-021; ER10-2570-021; ER10-2717-021; ER10-3140-020; ER13-55-011.

    Applicants: Birchwood Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE Companies.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-021.

    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-861-005.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation submits Readiness Certification for Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company's Participation in the Energy Imbalance Market.

    Filed Date: 10/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20151001-5434.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1065-001; ER15-1676-001.

    Applicants: Balko Wind, LLC, Balko Wind Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Balko MBR Companies.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2693-001.

    Applicants: Baltimore Power Company LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to new to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5231.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-16-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-05_MidAmerican ADIT Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-17-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Union Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-05_SA 2850 ATXI-UEC Construction Agreement (Maywood) to be effective 10/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-18-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-05_WMU Attachment O Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5163.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-19-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised Interconnection Service Agreement No. 3402, Queue No. Y2-105 to be effective 9/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-20-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4267; Queue Z1-091 (WMPA) to be effective 9/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    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: October 5, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25912 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293; FRL-9935-46-OAR] Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Jatropha Curcas Oil for Use in Biofuel Production AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the production and transport of Jatropha curcas (“jatropha”) oil feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas. This notice explains EPA's analysis of the production and transport components of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuel made from jatropha oil, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the future to determine whether such biofuels meet the necessary greenhouse gas reductions required for qualification as renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. Based on this analysis, we anticipate that biofuels produced from jatropha oil could qualify as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel if typical fuel production process technologies or process technologies with the same or lower GHG emissions are used.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Ramig, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1372; fax number: (202) 564-1177; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    This notice is organized as follows:

    I. General Information II. Introduction III. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of Jatropha Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock A. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Analysis B. Feedstock Description and Growing Conditions C. Cultivation and Harvesting D. Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions E. Feedstock Transport and Processing F. Potential Invasiveness G. Summary of GHG Emissions From Jatropha Oil Production and Transport H. Fuel Production and Distribution IV. Summary II. Introduction

    As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations published on March 26, 2010 1 (the “March 2010 RFS rule”), EPA specified the types of renewable fuels eligible to participate in the RFS program through approved fuel pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical components of an approved fuel pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. Fuel produced pursuant to each specific combination of the three components, or fuel pathway, is designated in the Table as eligible to qualify as renewable fuel. EPA may also approve additional fuel pathways not currently listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, including in response to a petition filed pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by a biofuel producer seeking EPA evaluation of a new fuel pathway.

    1 See 75 FR 14670.

    EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary greenhouse gas reductions required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-products from biofuel production.

    EPA received a petition submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 from Global Clean Energy Holdings (“GCEH” or the “GCEH petition”) and Emerald Biofuels, LLC, submitted under a claim of confidential business information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels (biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel and naphtha) produced from the oil extracted from Jatropha curcas (hereafter referred to as “jatropha” or “jatropha oil”). The petition also requested EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The Agency also received a separate petition from Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc., submitted under a claim of CBI, requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat jatropha oil as a transportation fuel, and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such neat jatropha oil fuel may be eligible.2

    2 There are no further references in this Notice to Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc., as they did not agree to waive CBI claims to the data/information contained in their petition and supporting documentation submitted to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, or references thereto.

    EPA has conducted an evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, and is seeking public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation. In this document, we are describing EPA's evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the feedstock production and feedstock transport stages of the lifecycle analysis of jatropha oil when it is used to produce a biofuel, including the indirect agricultural and forestry sector impacts. We are seeking public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation. For the reasons described in Section III below, we believe that it is reasonable to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to the production and transport of jatropha oil.

    If appropriate, EPA will update its evaluation of the feedstock production and transport phases of the lifecycle analysis for jatropha oil based on comments received in response to this action. EPA will then use this feedstock production and transport information to evaluate facility-specific petitions, received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, that propose to use jatropha oil as a feedstock for the production of biofuel. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil feedstock. In addition, EPA will determine—based on information in the petition and other relevant information, including the petitioner's energy and mass balance data—the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel. We will then combine our assessments into a full lifecycle GHG analysis and determine whether the fuel produced at an individual facility satisfies CAA renewable fuel GHG reduction requirements.

    III. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of Jatropha Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock

    EPA has evaluated the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil for use as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the GCEH petition and other data gathered by EPA. Section III-A includes an overview of our GHG analysis of jatropha oil production and transport. Section III-B describes jatropha oil and available information about the growing conditions suitable for commercial-scale production. Section III-C explains our analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to growing and harvesting jatropha seeds. Section III-D describes our analysis of the land use change and other agricultural sector emissions, including significant indirect emissions, attributable to producing jatropha oil for use as a biofuel feedstock. Section III-E explains our assessment of the GHG emissions associated with feedstock transport and processing, including oil extraction and pre-treatment. Section III-F discusses the potential invasiveness of jatropha. Section III-G summarizes GHG emissions from jatropha oil production and transport. Section III-H discusses how EPA intends to consider the GHG emissions associated with fuel production and distribution when evaluating facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to generate renewable identification numbers (RINs) for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil.

    This Notice explains and seeks comment on each component of EPA's GHG assessment of jatropha oil production and transportation. We also discuss and seek comment on potential invasiveness concerns for jatropha as they relate to GHG emissions. In this Notice we compare our assessment of jatropha oil to our previous evaluation of soybean oil for the March 2010 RFS rule because jatropha oil and soybean oil can be used in the same types of production processes to produce biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, and other similar types of biofuels. In the March 2010 RFS rule, EPA determined that several renewable fuel pathways using soybean oil feedstock meet the required 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold under the RFS for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel.3

    3 These pathways included biodiesel produced from soybean oil through a transesterification production process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel and heating oil produced from soybean oil through a hydrotreating production process.

    A. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Analysis

    Based on the limited data available on where jatropha will be produced at commercial scale for use in making biofuels for the RFS program, we evaluated a number of scenarios with different assumptions about where jatropha will be grown and what type of land jatropha plantations will use. This section briefly discusses the two main scenarios that we evaluated and our overall findings based on these analyses.

    As explained in more detail in Section III-B below, based on information in the GCEH petition and other data gathered by EPA through literature review and expert consultations, we believe that southern Mexico (specifically the states of Yucatan, Oaxaca and Chiapas) and northeastern Brazil 4 are the likely locations for commercial-scale production of jatropha for use in making biofuels for the RFS program. Given the limited amount of available data, these are the two countries where we found reliable evidence on jatropha production that could supply significant volumes of qualifying biofuel feedstock under the RFS program. In the first scenario that we evaluated, we assume that jatropha production will occur on grassland in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil that is not currently being used for crop production or pasture use. As explained more below, we estimate that on average the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil extracted from jatropha seeds grown on unused grasslands in southern Mexico are 951 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per tonne of jatropha oil that has been harvested, extracted, pre-treated to lower acidity and delivered to a biofuel producer (“delivered jatropha oil”), compared to 1,425 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered soybean oil. If jatropha is grown on grassland in northeastern Brazil that would not otherwise have been used for crop production or grazing, we estimate that the GHG emissions would be 1,858 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. Land use change emissions are higher in northeastern Brazil than in Mexico because, on average, grasslands in northeastern Brazil sequester significantly more carbon than grasslands in southern Mexico.5 Since we think it is likely that jatropha will be grown in both locations, we believe it is appropriate to evaluate a scenario in which we assume an equal amount of growth on grasslands in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil. In this scenario, the GHG emissions are 1,404 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, which is lower than the emissions attributable to delivered soybean oil.

    4 Specifically the regions of Brazil that encompasses the following provinces: Alagoas, Bahia, Ceara, Maranhao, Paraiba, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Tocantins.

    5 Based on our assessment of land use change emissions factors for previous RFS rules, on average grasslands in Mexico sequester approximately 15 tonnes CO2e per hectare compared to 40 tonnes CO2e per hectare in northeastern Brazil.

    In a second scenario, we considered the possibility that jatropha will be grown on land that would have otherwise been used for agriculture (crop production or grazing/pasture). For this analysis we used the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-CARD model),6 that has been used for a number of previous RFS rulemakings, including the March 2010 RFS rule. We conducted two analyses within this scenario: One where we assumed that jatropha will displace crops (predominantly corn) in Mexico, and one where jatropha is grown on cropland in Mexico and on agricultural land in Brazil (with the model choosing what land to displace in Brazil). The second scenario, where jatropha is grown on land otherwise used for agricultural production, evaluates the impacts associated with jatropha displacing crop and pasture land, including evaluating whether and where increased crop production or pasturage would occur in other regions to compensate for the jatropha displacement. In both of these analyses the GHG emissions attributable to the production of jatropha oil are much lower than the corresponding emissions for soybean oil. Specifically, for the Mexico cropland analysis we estimated GHG emissions of negative 721 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. As explained more below, the net GHG emissions in this analysis are negative primarily because jatropha sequesters more carbon than the cropland it displaces and the indirect emissions are relatively small because the displaced corn production is backfilled by higher yield producers (e.g., corn production in the United States). For the Mexico and Brazil analysis, the net GHG emissions are 128 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, which is also significantly less than the emissions per tonne of delivered soybean oil.

    6 For more information on the FAPRI-CARD model see the March 2010 RFS rule and associated Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf

    Based on the two scenarios described above, we believe it is reasonable, as a conservative approach, to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to jatropha oil when evaluating future facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to generate RINs for volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil.7 The following sections and supporting documentation in the public docket provides more details on the scenarios and analyses described above. We welcome public comments on all aspects of our assessment.

    7 The purpose of lifecycle assessment under the RFS program is not to precisely estimate lifecycle GHG emissions associated with particular biofuels, but instead to determine whether or not the fuels satisfy specified lifecycle GHG emissions thresholds to qualify as one or more of the four types of renewable fuel specified in the statute. If the record demonstrates that the GHG emissions associated with the use of jatropha oil are at least as low as those of soybean oil (which meets the most stringent, 50%, lifecycle GHG reduction threshold specified for non-cellulosic feedstocks) then EPA can conclude that where comparable biofuel production methods are used that jatropha oil-based biofuels will qualify in the same manner as soybean oil-based biofuels. In some cases, as here, this comparative approach simplifies EPA's assessment, and allows relevant conclusions to be drawn despite uncertainty that may be associated with an attempt to determine a more precise lifecycle GHG assessment. Similarly, where there are a range of possible outcomes and the fuel satisfies GHG reduction requirements for the optimum RFS renewable fuel qualification when “conservative” assumptions are used, then a more precise quantification of the matter is not required for purposes of a pathway determination.

    B. Feedstock Description and Growing Conditions

    Jatropha is a deciduous, perennial shrub or tree species belonging to the Euphorbiaceae family that grows approximately 8 to 15 meters tall. Experts agree that jatropha is native to the American tropics; however there is disagreement in the literature regarding its origin and the borders of jatropha's native range.8 However, it is naturalized throughout Latin America, including Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, and to a lesser extent in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.9 Traditionally, it has been grown in tropical and sub-tropical regions in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a hedge and ornamental plant. Jatropha is adapted to arid and semi-arid conditions and high temperatures, and it has been found to be very frost intolerant. In its Latin American range, it is common in deciduous forests and open spaces including grassland-savannah and scrub forests. It prefers low altitudes, well drained soils and good aeration. It is adapted to marginal lands with low nutrient content, but commercial production has been unsuccessful in these conditions. Jatropha fruit, similar in appearance to a walnut, can be harvested at least once per year, though multiple harvests are possible as mature jatropha plants flower throughout the year. The fruit has a thick outer covering called a husk. Each fruit contains one to three seeds, each with a durable outer shell and a softer oil-bearing inner kernel. The seeds are 25-50 percent oil by mass. When oil is extracted from the kernel the remaining material forms a seedcake (also known as press cake or meal cake) that contains curcin, a highly toxic protein. Although the oil and seedcake are toxic to humans and livestock, the oil has good properties for use as a biofuel feedstock to produce fuels such as biodiesel, renewable diesel and jet fuel, and the seedcake can be used as fertilizer or as fuel for process heat.

    8 CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393

    9 Ibid.

    Jatropha does not have a long history as a planted crop. As a result, empirical data on crop yields, crop inputs, and other key agricultural characteristics are not readily available. In order to fill these knowledge gaps to the greatest extent possible, EPA conducted a literature review of agronomic and lifecycle GHG analysis studies of jatropha.10 We sought input on a draft of the literature review from a wide array of stakeholders, including academics, environmental organizations, industry groups and the parties who submitted petitions involving the use of jatropha oil feedstock. The comments we received were considered in preparing the revised document available in the public docket associated with this Notice.

    10 See “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis” in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.

    Several past efforts to cultivate jatropha for biofuel use attempted, without commercial success, to produce jatropha on marginal agricultural land with minimal inputs.11 By contrast, the petitioners and others working to commercialize jatropha more recently have utilized higher quality agricultural land and have made much more extensive use of fertilizer, irrigation, and other agricultural inputs. Therefore, for purposes of this assessment, we assume that jatropha grown for use as a biofuel feedstock will be grown as a planted crop under normal agricultural conditions. In other words, we expect jatropha to be grown by farmers on arable land with the use of fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation where necessary, and other crop inputs. Our projection that jatropha grown for biofuel feedstock targeted to the U.S. market will be cultivated on agricultural-quality land also aligns with the definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR 80.1401, which specifies that planted crops must be grown on existing agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007.

    11 Kant, P. and S. Wu. 2011. “The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(17):7114-7115. doi: 10.1021/es201943v.

    Based on conversations with researchers at the United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and other organizations, we determined that jatropha is unlikely to be commercially grown in the United States because of its high intolerance to frost.12 USDA and several university research groups have attempted to grow jatropha in the United States, including projects in Arizona, California, and Florida. To date, no one has demonstrated that jatropha would be a viable commercial-scale crop in the United States due primarily to its extreme frost intolerance.13 Even in the southernmost reaches of the country, occasional frosts have proven too severe for the plant to be viable. For these reasons, EPA's analysis does not consider jatropha production in the United States.

    12 Telephone conversations with Terry Coffelt (USDA-ARS), Terry Isbell (USDA-ARS), Roy Scott (USDA-ARS), Dan Parfitt (University of California-Davis), Wagner Vendrame (University of Florida), Jaime Barton (Hawaii Agricultural Research Center), Bob Osgood (HARC), Richard Oguchi (University of Hawaii), Robert Bailis (Yale).

    13 Ibid.

    Projecting where jatropha will be produced is difficult, as evidenced by previous government projects to support the expansion of jatropha production that did not materialize.14 Given the poor track record of pronouncements about future jatropha development, we focused our analysis on regions where we could find evidence of current production at commercial scale. Through literature review and conversations with researchers and industry experts, we found evidence of significant commercial jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil. In contrast, although large areas of Asian jatropha production were planned and reported in global surveys, EPA was not able to verify the existence of successful commercial scale plantations in these regions. While there is potential for jatropha cultivation in India and Africa, it remains uncertain whether jatropha oil grown in those locations would be exported to the United States or whether it would qualify as renewable biomass as defined in the CAA and implementing RFS regulations.15 The scenarios we evaluated looked only at jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil, because, as discussed in more detail below, these are the two countries where we found reliable evidence on jatropha production that could supply significant volumes of qualifying biofuel feedstock under the RFS program.

    14 See “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.

    15 For example, recent trade data shows that in general the U.S. receives substantially more agricultural imports from Mexico and Brazil than from Africa and India. For example, in Fiscal Year 2014, the U.S. imported over 22.5 billion dollars of agricultural products from Mexico and Brazil, compared to approximately 5.7 billion dollars from Africa and India. Source: USDA Economic Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service. 2015. Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade, AES-89, August 27, 2015.

    Mexico and Brazil offer hospitable environments for jatropha. Both countries are part of jatropha's naturalized range, and several efforts to commercialize jatropha have been reported there.16 In the GEXSI jatropha market survey of Latin America, Mexico and Brazil were the only countries classified as having “strong commercial activities.” 17 The global survey completed by Leuphana in 2012 also identified Mexico and Brazil as the dominant jatropha producers in Latin America with area planted of 8,000 and 3,100 hectares respectively.18 These survey results are supported by other studies in the literature and information gathered by EPA.19 According to the GCEH petition, GCEH recently established a jatropha plantation in the Yucatan Peninsula encompassing several thousand hectares, with plans for expansion in the same region. Furthermore, the Mexican government has supported jatropha through the ProArbol program of the National Forestry Commission of Mexico (CONAFOR) that provides subsidies for the promotion of jatropha as a form of reforestation.20 Bailis and Baka, for their study on using jatropha oil to produce jet fuel, focused on Brazil because its position as a major biofuel and commercial agricultural exporter makes it a potential site for large-scale jatropha production.21 As another reason for focusing on Brazil as a growth region for jatropha, Bailis and Baka cited the major push by EMBRAPA, the federal agricultural research and support organization, to develop the crop. Furthermore, our literature review identified additional studies that reported commercial scale jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil.22

    16 CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393

    17 The Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI). 2008. Global Market Study on Jatropha. Final report. Available at: http://www.jatropha-alliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_Global-Jatropha-Study_FULL-REPORT.pdf.

    18 Wahl et al. 2012. Insights into Jatropha Projects Worldwide. Leuphana University.

    19 See “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.

    20 Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E. Riegelhaupt, D. Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O. Masera. 2011. “Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program.” Ecology and Society 16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-160411.

    21 Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil.” Environmental Science & Technology 44(22):8684-8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178.

    22 See “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.

    There have been several efforts to commercialize jatropha in other parts of the world, including Sub-Saharan Africa, India, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. However, the commercial scale viability of jatropha farms in all of these regions is currently uncertain. The global surveys conducted by GEXSI and Leuphana reported that the vast majority of jatropha being cultivated worldwide was being grown in Southeast Asia, including India, China and Indonesia. The most recent of these surveys collected data in 2011.23 However, after reviewing these surveys carefully and discussing their results with experts in industry and the USDA, we determined that practically all of the reported jatropha plantations in Asia were aspirational and have not resulted in commercially significant volumes of jatropha oil. EPA has not been able to locate any information that confirms the presence of the large scale Asian projects reported in the GEXSI and Leuphana surveys, and there does not appear to be any official data confirming their existence.24 These surveys relied on data that were self-reported and in many cases were based on goals rather than outcomes.25 A 2012 report by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) confirms the very small scale of commercial jatropha oil production in India.26 More recently, multiple companies working to commercialize jatropha in parts of Asia also confirmed that, while several large projects were planned in Southeast Asia, they have all since been scaled back to pilot projects or abandoned for funding and other reasons.27 For these reasons, our analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil produced as biofuel feedstock for the RFS program does not project jatropha oil production from Asia.

    23 Wahl et al. 2012.

    24 Letter from Cosmo Biofuels Group, “Jatropha RFS2 Pathway Petition Insights Into Jatropha Projects Worldwide.” February 7, 2014

    25 For example, a review of jatropha promotion in India is provided in Kumar, S., Chaube, A., Jain, S., K. 2012. “Crit