Federal Register Vol. 80, No.200,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 200 (October 16, 2015)

Page Range62429-63070
FR Document

80_FR_200
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 62435 - Presidential Determination With Respect to Foreign Governments' Efforts Regarding Trafficking in PersonsPDF
80 FR 62433 - Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016PDF
80 FR 62431 - Determination With Respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008PDF
80 FR 62429 - Delegation of Authority Under Section 404(c) of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008PDF
80 FR 62576 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 62530 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 62542 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee Call for Committee Membership NominationsPDF
80 FR 62526 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Hazardous Chemical Reporting: The Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II)PDF
80 FR 62563 - Eastern States: Filing of Plats of SurveyPDF
80 FR 62595 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Woven Gold: Tapestries of Louis XIV” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 62594 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Picturing the Americas: Landscape Painting From Tierra del Fuego to the Artic” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 62488 - International Affairs; High Seas Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing VesselsPDF
80 FR 62501 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction for Gag GrouperPDF
80 FR 62527 - Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
80 FR 62528 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
80 FR 62443 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability Minority and Women Outreach Program ContractingPDF
80 FR 62534 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 62541 - Proposed Collection; 60-day Comment Request; Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program (NICHD)PDF
80 FR 62543 - Proposed Action Under the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines)PDF
80 FR 62513 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of DirectorsPDF
80 FR 62526 - Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 62598 - Soo Line Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Cook County, Ill.PDF
80 FR 62595 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Greeks-Agamemnon to Alexander the Great” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 62574 - Meetings of Humanities Panel; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 62574 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
80 FR 62510 - Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Single Family Mortgage Insurance Maximum Time Period for Filing Insurance Claims, Curtailment of Interest and Disallowance of Operating Expenses Incurred Beyond Certain Established Timeframes; Partial WithdrawalPDF
80 FR 62506 - Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Proposed Amendments to Marketing OrderPDF
80 FR 62513 - Plant Variety Protection Board; Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 62524 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
80 FR 62554 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 62556 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 62572 - Comment Request for Information Collection for the Self-Employment Training (SET) Demonstration Evaluation (SET Evaluation); Extension Request Without Change to an Existing CollectionPDF
80 FR 62502 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reapportionment of the 2015 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Halibut Prohibited Species Catch Limits for the Trawl Deep-Water and Shallow-Water Fishery Categories; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 62562 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Resource Management Plan for the White River Field Office and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment for Travel and Transportation Management, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 62502 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 62564 - Initial Classification of Public Lands and Minerals for State Indemnity Selection, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 62560 - Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting, Deep Creek Canyon and Corridor, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 62551 - Sewage Treatment Technology-Type Approval of Marine Sanitation DevicesPDF
80 FR 62530 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 62537 - Draft Recommendations for the Permitted Daily Exposures for Two Solvents, Triethylamine and Methylisobutylketone, According to the Maintenance Procedures for the Guidance Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents; International Conference on Harmonisation; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 62519 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 62457 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth and Chesapeake, VAPDF
80 FR 62456 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VAPDF
80 FR 62570 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)PDF
80 FR 62572 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection Cargo Theft Incident ReportPDF
80 FR 62518 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 62520 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting (Webinar)PDF
80 FR 62517 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 62520 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 62519 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 62518 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 62526 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 62525 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Educational Quality Through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP) Experimental Sites InitiativePDF
80 FR 62524 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Non-Title IV Revenue Requirements (90/10)PDF
80 FR 62521 - Procurement List; AdditionPDF
80 FR 62550 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 62523 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 62523 - Membership of the Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 62584 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, Amending Section 907.00 of the Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) To (i) Amend the Suite of Complimentary Products and Services That Are Offered to Certain Current and Newly Listed Companies, (ii) Update the Value of Complimentary Products and Services Offered to Listed Companies, and (iii) Provide That Complimentary Products and Services Would Also Be Offered to Companies That Transfer Their Listing to the Exchange From Another National Securities ExchangePDF
80 FR 62522 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Testing and Recordkeeping Requirements for Carpets and RugsPDF
80 FR 62521 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning AppliancesPDF
80 FR 62566 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MSPDF
80 FR 62592 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Several Rules To Address Certain Order Handling Obligations on the Part of Its Floor BrokersPDF
80 FR 62576 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to PowerShares DWA Tactical Sector Rotation Portfolio Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation MPDF
80 FR 62588 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 62591 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Kill Switch for NOMPDF
80 FR 62578 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the TRACE Pilot Program in FINRA Rule 6730(e)(4)PDF
80 FR 62593 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to the ICC Rule Enforcement Process for Missed SubmissionsPDF
80 FR 62590 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending the Exchange's Fee Schedule To Eliminate the Sponsor Fee In Connection With Listing a New Derivative Securities Product on the ExchangePDF
80 FR 62580 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the AltShares Long/Short High Yield Fund of ETFis Series Trust IPDF
80 FR 62533 - Availability of Draft Toxicological Profile; Set 27 Toxicological ProfilesPDF
80 FR 62536 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 62533 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and QualityPDF
80 FR 62599 - Lone Star Railroad, Inc. and Southern Switching Company-Track Construction and Operation Exemption-in Howard County, TexPDF
80 FR 62538 - Clarifying Current Roles and Responsibilities Described in the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology and Developing a Long-Term Strategy for the Regulation of the Products of Biotechnology; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 62439 - NRCS Procedures for Granting Equitable ReliefPDF
80 FR 62513 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Current Population Survey (CPS) Fertility SupplementPDF
80 FR 62570 - Certain Automated Teller Machines and Point of Sale Devices and Associated Software Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and the Notice of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 62512 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 62529 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 62462 - 2-Propen-1-Aminium, N,N-Dimethyl-N-Propenyl-, Chloride, Homopolymer; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 62569 - Certain Recombinant Factor VIII Products; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting an Unopposed Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 62487 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Automatic Emergency BrakingPDF
80 FR 62552 - Coast Guard Acceptance of Sewage Treatment Plants for Type-Approval to International Maritime Organization Resolution MEPC.227(64)PDF
80 FR 62957 - Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the Herding or Production of Livestock on the Range in the United StatesPDF
80 FR 62595 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PAESANA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 62504 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Appendix APDF
80 FR 62466 - Shipping; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 62509 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Los Angeles, CAPDF
80 FR 62451 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Marshall, ARPDF
80 FR 62511 - Approval of Implementation Plans; Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008 Ozone Standard RequirementsPDF
80 FR 62457 - Approval of Implementation Plans; Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008 Ozone Standard RequirementsPDF
80 FR 62558 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 62514 - Healthcare Technology & Hospital Information Services Trade Mission to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and KuwaitPDF
80 FR 62450 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Cottonwood, AZPDF
80 FR 62447 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E Airspace; Mountain Home, IDPDF
80 FR 62516 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014PDF
80 FR 62567 - Information Collection: Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Development-Public Attitudes, Values, and Implications for Tourism and Recreation; Submitted for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 62441 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Clothes Washers; Correcting AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 62445 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ashland, VAPDF
80 FR 62446 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newport, NHPDF
80 FR 62449 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ponce, PRPDF
80 FR 62596 - Deepwater Port License Application: Liberty Natural Gas LLC, Port Ambrose Deepwater Port; Final Application Public Hearing and Final Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 62601 - 2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program ModificationsPDF
80 FR 62761 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program-Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 Through 2017PDF
80 FR 62455 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 62452 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 62470 - Ensuring Continuity of 911 CommunicationsPDF

Issue

80 200 Friday, October 16, 2015 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 62513 2015-26387 Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 62533 2015-26319 Agency Toxic Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry NOTICES Draft Toxicological Profile; Set 27 Toxicological Profiles; Availability, 62533-62534 2015-26321 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Marketing Orders: Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California, 62506-62509 2015-26378 NOTICES Meetings: Plant Variety Protection Board, 62513 2015-26377 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Current Population Survey Fertility Supplement, 62513-62514 2015-26308 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Electronic Health Record Incentive Program -- Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 through 2017, 62762-62955 2015-25595 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62534-62536 2015-26390 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Native Language Preservation and Maintenance Grant Application Template Pilot, 62536-62537 2015-26320 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth and Chesapeake, VA, 62457 2015-26359 James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA, 62456-62457 2015-26358 Shipping; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming Amendments, 62466-62470 2015-26119 NOTICES Acceptance of Sewage Treatment Plants for Type-Approval to International Maritime Organization Resolution, 62552-62554 2015-26285 Meetings: Sewage Treatment Technology — Type Approval of Marine Sanitation Devices, 62551-62552 2015-26363 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 62521 2015-26342 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning Appliances, 62521-62522 2015-26333 Testing and Recordkeeping Requirements for Carpets and Rugs, 62522 2015-26334 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62523 2015-26338 Membership of the Performance Review Board, 62523-62524 2015-26337 Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62524 2015-26376 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP) Experimental Sites Initiative, 62525-62526 2015-26344 Student Assistance General Provisions — Non-Title IV Revenue Requirements, 62524-62525 2015-26343 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration RULES Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the Herding or Production of Livestock on the Range in the United States, 62958-63070 2015-26252 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Self-Employment Training Demonstration Evaluation, 62572-62574 2015-26373 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Clothes Washers; Correcting Amendments, 62441-62443 2015-25963
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008 Ozone Standard Requirements, 62457-62462 2015-26023 Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: 2-propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-propenyl-, chloride, homopolymer, 62462-62466 2015-26297 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008 Ozone Standard Requirements, 62511 2015-26024 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Chemical Reporting -- The Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II), 62526-62527 2015-26406 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 62526 2015-26348 Pesticide Product Registrations: Applications for New Uses, 62528-62529 2015-26393 Toxic Substances Control Act Test Data, 62527-62528 2015-26394 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E Airspace: Mountain Home, ID, 62447-62449 2015-25991 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Ashland, VA, 62445-62446 2015-25901 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Cottonwood, AZ, 62450-62451 2015-26002 Marshall, AR, 62451-62452 2015-26095 Newport, NH, 62446-62447 2015-25900 Ponce, PR, 62449-62450 2015-25853 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures, 62452-62456 2015-25555 2015-25553 PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Los Angeles, CA, 62509-62510 2015-26097 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, 62470-62486 2015-24845 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction, 62512 2015-26305 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62529-62530 2015-26304 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability Minority and Women Outreach Program Contracting, 62443-62445 2015-26391 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations, 62554-62558 2015-26374 2015-26375 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 62526 2015-26384 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62530 2015-26474 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62530-62533 2015-26362 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Draft Recommendations for the Permitted Daily Exposures for Two Solvents, Triethylamine and Methylisobutylketone, According to the Maintenance Procedures for the Guidance Q3C Impurities -- Residual Solvents; International Conference on Harmonisation, 62537-62538 2015-26361 Meetings: Clarifying Current Roles and Responsibilities Described in the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology and Developing a Long-Term Strategy for the Regulation of the Products of Biotechnology, 62538-62541 2015-26311 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES 2015 Edition Health Information Technology Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications, 62602-62759 2015-25597
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

PROPOSED RULES Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards: Meetings -- Appendix A, 62504-62506 2015-26200
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Housing Administration Single Family Mortgage Insurance Maximum Time Period for Filing Insurance Claims, etc., 62510-62511 2015-26379 NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 62558-62560 2015-26014 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 62516-62517 2015-25984 Healthcare Technology and Hospital Information Services Trade Mission to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, 62514-62516 2015-26008 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Automated Teller Machines and Point of Sale Devices and Associated Software Thereof, 62570 2015-26307 Certain Recombinant Factor VIII Products, 62569-62570 2015-26295 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cargo Theft Incident Report, 62572 2015-26356 National Incident-Based Reporting System, 62570-62572 2015-26357 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Filings of Plats of Survey: Eastern States, 62563-62564 2015-26402 Initial Classification of Public Lands and Minerals for State Indemnity Selections: Colorado, 62564-62566 2015-26365 Public Land Withdrawal Applications: Deep Creek Canyon and Corridor, CO, 62560-62562 2015-26364 Resource Management Plan Amendments: White River Field Office, CO, 62562-62563 2015-26370 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Deepwater Port License Application: Liberty Natural Gas LLC, Port Ambrose Deepwater Port, 62596-62598 2015-25727 Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PAESANA, 62595-62596 2015-26208 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 62574-62576 2015-26380 Humanities Panel; Correction, 62574 2015-26381 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Automatic Emergency Braking, 62487-62488 2015-26294 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program, 62541-62542 2015-26389 Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, 62543-62550 2015-26388 Meetings: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 62550-62551 2015-26341 Requests for Nominations: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee, 62542-62543 2015-26408 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction for Gag Grouper, 62501 2015-26396 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Correction, 62502 2015-26367 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Halibut Prohibited Species Catch Limits for the Trawl Deep-water and Shallow-water Fishery Categories; Reapportionment; Correction, 62502-62503 2015-26372 International Affairs: High Seas Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels, 62488-62501 2015-26398 NOTICES Meetings: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 62518-62519 2015-26354 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 62517-62518, 62520-62521 2015-26349 2015-26351 2015-26352 2015-26353 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 62519 2015-26350 U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System Advisory Committee, 62519-62520 2015-26360 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MS, 62566-62567 2015-26331 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service RULES NRCS Procedures for Granting Equitable Relief, 62439-62441 2015-26309 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62576 2015-26482 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Development — Public Attitudes, Values, and Implications for Tourism and Recreation, 62567-62569 2015-25971 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of September 29, 2015), 62429 2015-26489 Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008; Waiver (Presidential Determination No. 2015-13 of September 29, 2015), 62431 2015-26491 Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016 (Presidential Determination No. 2015-14 of September 29, 2015), 62433-62434 2015-26493 Trafficking in Persons; Foreign Governments' Efforts Regarding (Presidential Determination No. 2016-01 of October 5, 2015), 62435-62437 2015-26496 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Granting Limited Exemption Orders: Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to PowerShares DWA Tactical Sector Rotation Portfolio Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M, 62576-62578 2015-26329 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 62588-62590 2015-26328 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 62578-62580 2015-26326 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 62593-62594 2015-26325 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 62584-62588 2015-26336 NYSE Arca, Inc., 62590-62591 2015-26324 Several Rules to Address Certain Order Handling Obligations on the Part of Its Floor Brokers, 62592-62593 2015-26330 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 62580-62584, 62591-62592 2015-26323 2015-26327 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Picturing the Americas; Landscape Painting from Tierra del Fuego to the Artic, 62594 2015-26399 The Greeks — Agamemnon to Alexander the Great, 62595 2015-26382 Woven Gold; Tapestries of Louis XIV, 62595 2015-26401 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Soo Line Railroad Co.; Cook County, Ill., 62598-62599 2015-26383 Track Construction and Operation Exemptions: Lone Star Railroad, Inc. and Southern Switching Company; Howard County, TX, 62599 2015-26313 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, 62602-62759 2015-25597 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 62762-62955 2015-25595 Part IV Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration, 62958-63070 2015-26252 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.

80 200 Friday, October 16, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service 7 CFR Part 635 RIN 0578-AA57 NRCS Procedures for Granting Equitable Relief AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) issues its final rule implementing the equitable relief authority, and the procedures set forth in section 1613 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Act), relating to relief for participants for covered programs administered by NRCS. The relief applies to cases where the program participant took action to his or her detriment based on action or advice from an NRCS employee, and situations where the participant acted in good faith, but failed to fully comply with program requirements.

DATES:

This rule is effective October 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paulette Craig, National Equitable Relief Specialist, at (301) 504-1650.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB will not review this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. However, this regulation implements section 1613 of the 2002 Act, which is part of Title I of the 2002 Act. Section 1601(c) of the 2002 Act requires NRCS to promulgate regulations or administer Title I without regard to 5 U.S.C. 553. Therefore, NRCS did not prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this final rule.

Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined under Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of UMRA is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (Pub. L. 104-121). Therefore, NRCS is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Section 1601(c)(2) of the 2002 Act requires that the implementation of this provision be carried out without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act, Chapter 35 of Title 44, United States Code. Therefore, NRCS is not reporting recordkeeping or estimated paperwork burden associated with this final rule.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act

NRCS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act as well as continued pursuit of providing all services electronically when practicable. This rule requires that a program participant make a written request for equitable relief for a program administered by NRCS. In part, this rule lends itself to electronic requests as submitted by State Conservationists or participants.

Environmental Analysis

NRCS has determined that changes made by this rule fall within a category of actions that are excluded from the requirement to prepare either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Administrative changes made in this rule fall within a categorical exclusion for policy development relating to routine activities and similar administrative functions (7 CFR 1b.3(a)(1)) and NRCS has identified no extraordinary circumstances that would otherwise require preparation of either.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

NRCS has determined through a Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) that the final rule discloses no disproportionately adverse impacts for minorities, women, or persons with disabilities. The CRIA provides responses to the Final rule amendments.

The data presented indicates producers who are members of the protected groups have participated in NRCS conservation programs at parity with other producers. Extrapolating from historical participation data, it is reasonable to conclude that NRCS programs, including procedures for granting equitable relief for ineligibility for these programs, will continue to be administered in a non-discriminatory manner. Outreach and communication strategies are in place to ensure all producers will be provided the same information to allow them to make informed compliance decisions regarding the use of their lands that will affect their participation in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs.

The equitable relief procedures apply to all persons equally regardless of their race, color, national origin, gender, sex, or disability status. Therefore, the final rule portends no adverse civil rights implications for women, minorities, or persons with disabilities.

Discussion of the Rule 7 CFR Part 635—Equitable Relief From Ineligibility Section 635.1 Definitions and Abbreviations

This section amends, adds, or removes a number of defined terms in the rule. Specifically, it adds definitions for “appeal rights,” “equitable relief,” “participant,” and “State.” “Appeal rights” is defined to clarify that a decision under this rule may be appealed to the National Appeals Division (NAD). “Participant” and “State” are defined consistent with their statutory definitions. The definitions of “covered program” and “State Conservationist” are simplified. The definition of “Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)” is revised to be consistent with the definition used in other NRCS regulations, and clarifies that the term includes programs administered by the agency using the funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

Section 635.2 Applicability

The amended rule clarifies the application of subsection (a), and strikes subsections (b) and (c) which are no longer needed.

Section 635.3 Reliance on Incorrect Actions or Information

The amended rule makes changes to this section to more closely conform to the language of the statute by enumerating the specific requirements to qualify for relief under this section. These changes do not substantively change the scope of this authority.

Section 635.4 Failure To Fully Comply

Section 635.4 of the amended rule makes changes to this section to more closely conform to the language of the statute by enumerating the specific requirements to qualify for relief under this section. These changes provide more flexibility for State Conservationists and participants to request equitable relief, and do not substantively change the scope of this authority.

Section 635.5 Forms of Relief

The amended rule makes technical and grammatical changes to this section, and removes references to “loans” since NRCS does not have authority to make loans.

Section 635.6 Equitable Relief by State Conservationists

The amended rule restructures and clarifies the existing language of § 635.6. In particular, the revised section explains the limitations on a State Conservationist's authority in a separate subsection, and amends the description of the State Conservationist's authority to more closely reflect the statutory language.

Section 635.7 Procedures for Granting Equitable Relief

The amended rule strikes the list of covered programs in paragraph (a). The definition of “covered programs” sufficiently identifies these programs.

The amended rule allows the Chief, State Conservationist, or participant to initiate a request for equitable relief. Under the current rule, only the participant can initiate a request for equitable relief. The State Conservationist cannot initiate a request even if he or she believes the participant qualifies for such relief. For example, an NRCS employee's misaction or misinformation may impact several different participants, resulting in a number of them being determined ineligible for program benefits. Under the current rule, the participants must request equitable relief from NRCS in order to obtain equitable relief. The State Conservationist cannot initiate an equitable relief request, even if he or she knows that other participants would likely also qualify for equitable relief. Given the potential for treating participants differently, NRCS is amending this procedure to allow the Chief or a State Conservationist to initiate a request for equitable relief for a participant meeting the requirements of this part.

Section 635.7 is also amended to add § 635.7(e) and (f). Paragraph 635.7(e) provides that requests for equitable relief must include any information necessary to determine eligibility under this authority and such other information as required by NRCS to determine whether granting equitable relief is appropriate. This revision reflects that the information needed by the agency to assess equitable relief requests will be provided and updated by applicable policy and procedure at Title 440 of the Conservation Program Manual, Part 509.

Paragraph 635.7(f) provides the participant with appeal rights to the National Appeals Division, pursuant to § 614.9(e) of this chapter, if equitable relief is denied.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 635

Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Conservation programs, Equitable Relief.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 635 is revised to read as follows:

PART 635—EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM INELIGIBILITY Sec. 635.1 Definitions and abbreviations. 635.2 Applicability. 635.3 Reliance on incorrect actions or information. 635.4 Failure to fully comply. 635.5 Forms of relief. 635.6 Equitable relief by State Conservationists. 635.7 Procedures for granting equitable relief. Authority:

7 U.S.C. 7996.

§ 635.1 Definitions and abbreviations.

The following terms apply to this part:

Appeal rights means the right of the participant to appeal a decision to the National Appeals Division (NAD) pursuant to part 614 of this chapter.

Chief means the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or a person with delegated authority to act for the Chief.

Covered program means a conservation program administered by NRCS.

Equitable relief means an action described in § 635.5 of this part.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) means an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which has responsibility for administering covered programs, including those using the funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

OGC means the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Participant means a participant in a covered program.

Secretary means the Secretary of U.S. Department of Agriculture.

State means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

State Conservationist means the NRCS employee authorized to direct and supervise NRCS activities in a State or the State Conservationist's designee.

§ 635.2 Applicability.

This part applies to all covered programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, except for the Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation provisions of Title XII, subtitles B and C of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.). Administration of this part shall be under the supervision of the Chief, except that such authority shall not limit the exercise of authority by State Conservationists of the Natural Resources Conservation Service provided in § 635.6 of this part.

§ 635.3 Reliance on incorrect actions or information.

The Chief may grant equitable relief to any participant that NRCS determines is not in compliance with the requirements, terms and conditions of a covered program, and therefore ineligible for a payment, or other benefit, if the participant—

(a) Acting in good faith, relied on action and advice from an NRCS employee or representative of USDA to their detriment;

(b) Did not know or have sufficient reason to know that the action or advice upon which they relied would be detrimental; and

(c) Did not act in reliance on their own misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the program provisions, notices, or information.

§ 635.4 Failure to fully comply.

The Chief may grant equitable relief to any participant that NRCS determines is not in full compliance with the requirements, terms and conditions of a covered program, and therefore ineligible for a payment, or other benefit, if the participant—

(a) Made a good faith effort to comply fully with the requirements; and

(b) Rendered substantial performance.

§ 635.5 Forms of relief.

(a) The Chief may authorize a participant in a covered program to:

(1) Retain payments or other benefits received under the covered program;

(2) Continue to receive payments and other benefits under the covered program;

(3) Continue to participate, in whole or in part, under any contract executed under the covered program;

(4) Re-enroll all or part of the land covered by the program; and

(5) Receive such other equitable relief as determined to be appropriate.

(b) As a condition of receiving relief under this part, the participant may be required to remedy their failure to meet the program requirement or mitigate its effects.

§ 635.6 Equitable relief by State Conservationists.

(a) State Conservationists' Authority. State Conservationists have the authority to grant requests for equitable relief under this section when—

(1) The program matter with respect to which the relief is sought is a program matter in a covered program operated within the authorized jurisdiction of the State Conservationist;

(2) The total amount of relief (including payments and other benefits) that will be provided to the participant under this section during the fiscal year is less than $20,000;

(3) The total amount of such relief that has been previously provided to the participant using this section in the fiscal year, as calculated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, is not more than $5,000;

(4) The total amount of payments and benefits of any kind for which relief is provided to similarly situated participants by a State Conservationist in a fiscal year, is not more than $1,000,000.

(b) Additional limits on authority. The authority provided under this section does not extend to the administration of:

(1) Payment limitations under part 1400 of this title;

(2) Payment limitations under a conservation program administered by the Secretary; or

(3) The highly erodible land and wetland conservation requirements under subtitles B or C of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.).

(c) Concurrence by the Office of the General Counsel. Relief shall only be made under this part after consultation with, and concurrence by, the Office of General Counsel.

(d) Secretary's reversal authority. A decision made under this part by the State Conservationist may be reversed only by the Secretary, who may not delegate that authority.

(e) Relation to other authorities. The authority provided under this section is in addition to any other applicable authority that may allow relief.

§ 635.7 Procedures for granting equitable relief.

(a) The Chief or State Conservationist may initiate a request for equitable relief for a participant that meets the requirement of this part.

(b) Participants may request equitable relief from the Chief or the State Conservationist as provided in §§ 635.3 and 635.4 of this part.

(c) Only a participant directly affected by the non-compliance with the covered program requirements is eligible for equitable relief under this part.

(d) Requests by a participant for equitable relief must be made in writing, no later than 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the notification of non-compliance with the requirements of the covered conservation program.

(e) Requests for equitable relief must include any information necessary to determine eligibility under this part and such other information as required by NRCS to determine whether granting equitable relief is appropriate. Information needed by the agency to assess equitable relief requests will be provided and updated by applicable policy and procedure.

(f) If equitable relief is denied by the Chief or the State Conservationist, the participant will be provided with written notice of appeal rights to the National Appeals Division, pursuant to 7 CFR part 614.

Signed this 7th day of October, 2015, in Washington, DC. Leonard Jordan, Associate Chief for Conservation, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26309 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0009] RIN 1904-AC97 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Clothes Washers; Correcting Amendments AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

On August 5, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule amending the test procedures for clothes washers. This correction addresses several cross-reference numbering errors, in which the cross-references were inadvertently not updated to reflect the revised section numbering resulting from the final rule amendments. In addition, this correction republishes several amendments from the final rule that could not be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) due to inaccurate amendatory instructions, and clarifies several of the amendatory instructions in the final rule to remove certain sections of the test procedures. Furthermore, this correction reinstates three sections of the clothes washer test procedure that were inadvertently removed from the CFR starting with the 2013 annual edition. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of either of these final rules.

DATES:

Effective Date: October 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 5, 2015 (the “August 2015 final rule”), amending the test procedures for clothes washers. 80 FR 46729. In the rule, several section number cross-references were inadvertently not updated to reflect the revised section numbering resulting from the final rule amendments. These errors apply to both Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Table 1 summarizes the affected sections and the associated corrections.

Table 1—Corrections to Section Number Cross-References Appendix J1 Section 2.7
  • Section 4.2.3
  • Section 4.4
  • Existing reference to section 3.1.5 updated to 3.1.6.
    Section 3.6 Existing reference to section 1.18 updated to 1.20. Section 3.7.1
  • Section 3.7.2
  • Existing reference to section 3.5.2.3 updated to 3.5.3.
    Appendix J2 Section 3.8.2.6 Existing reference to “section 6.3 of this appendix” updated to “section 7 of appendix J3 to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.” Section 3.8.3.2
  • Section 3.8.3.4
  • Existing reference to “section 6.2.1 of this appendix” updated to “section 6.1 of appendix J3 to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.”
    Section 4.2.4 Existing reference to section 3.7 updated to 3.6. Section 4.2.5 Existing reference to section 3.6 updated to 3.7. Section 4.2.12
  • Section 4.2.13
  • Section 4.5
  • Section 4.6
  • Existing reference to section 3.1.6 updated to 3.1.7.

    In addition, this final rule republishes the amendments to sections 2.6.5.1 and 2.6.5.2. It also clarifies that sections 2.6.5.3 (including its subsections), 2.6.5.4, 2.6.6.1, 2.6.6.2, 2.6.7.1, and 2.6.7.2 of Appendix J1 are to be removed.

    Finally, in a test procedure final rule published on March 7, 2012 (the “March 2012 final rule”), DOE amended section 3.6 of Appendix J1 and intended for sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3 to remain unchanged. 77 FR 13888. In the January 1, 2013 version of the CFR, sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3 of Appendix J1 were inadvertently removed. Section 3.6 requires measuring water and electrical energy consumption for the Cold Wash temperature selection using the water fill levels and test load sizes specified in sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3. As was the case prior to the inadvertent deletion and as reinstated, sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3 provide these specifications and also define the variables associated with each measurement. This final rule correction reinstates these sections as they appeared in the January 1, 2012 version of the CFR, except that the word “adaptive” in section 3.6.3 is changed to “automatic,” as described in the August 2015 final rule.

    Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this rulemaking are those set forth in the March 2012 final rule and August 2015 final rule that originally codified the respective amendments to DOE's test procedures for clothes washers. The amendments in the March 2012 final rule became effective April 6, 2012, and the amendments in the August 2015 final rule became effective September 4, 2015.

    Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), DOE has determined that notice and prior opportunity for comment on this rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemakings or any of the conclusions reached in support of either of these final rules. For these reasons, DOE has also determined that there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

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

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

    2. Appendix J1 to subpart B of part 430 is amended by: a. Revising sections 2.6.5.1 and 2.6.5.2; b. Removing sections 2.6.5.3, 2.6.5.3.1 through 2.6.5.3.6, 2.6.5.4, 2.6.6.1, 2.6.6.2, 2.6.7.1, and 2.6.7.2; c. Revising sections 2.7, 3.6, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 4.2.3, and 4.4; and d. Adding sections 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix J1 to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

    2.6.5.1 Using the coefficients A and B calculated in Appendix J3 to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B:

    RMCcorr = A × RMC + B

    2.6.5.2 Substitute RMCcorr values in calculations in section 3.8 of this appendix.

    2.7 Test Load Sizes. Maximum, minimum, and, when required, average test load sizes shall be determined using Table 5.1 of this appendix and the clothes container capacity as measured in sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.6 of this appendix. Test loads shall consist of energy test cloths, except that adjustments to the test loads to achieve proper weight can be made by the use of energy stuffer cloths with no more than 5 stuffer cloths per load.

    3.6 “Cold Wash” (Minimum Wash Temperature Selection). Water and electrical energy consumption shall be measured for each water fill level or test load size as specified in sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3 of this appendix for the coldest wash temperature selection available. For a clothes washer that offers two or more wash temperature settings labeled as cold, such as “Cold” and “Tap Cold,” the setting with the minimum wash temperature shall be considered the cold wash. If any of the other cold wash temperature settings add hot water to raise the wash temperature above the cold water supply temperature, as defined in section 2.3 of this appendix, those setting(s) shall be considered warm wash setting(s), as defined in section 1.20 of this appendix. If none of the cold wash temperature settings add hot water for any of the water fill levels or test load sizes required for the energy test cycle, the wash temperature setting labeled as “Cold” shall be considered the cold wash, and the other wash temperature setting(s) labeled as cold shall not be required for testing.

    3.6.1 Maximum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption (Hcx), cold water consumption (Ccx), and electrical energy consumption (Ecx) shall be measured for a cold wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls set for the maximum water fill level. The maximum test load size is to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this appendix.

    3.6.2 Minimum test load and water fill. Hot water consumption (Hcn), cold water consumption (Ccn), and electrical energy consumption (Ecn) shall be measured for a cold wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with the controls set for the minimum water fill level. The minimum test load size is to be used and shall be determined per Table 5.1 of this appendix.

    3.6.3 Average test load and water fill. For clothes washers with an automatic water fill control system, measure the values for hot water consumption (Hca), cold water consumption (Cca), and electrical energy consumption (Eca) for a cold wash/cold rinse energy test cycle, with an average test load size as determined per Table 5.1 of this appendix.

    3.7.1 For the rinse only, measure the amount of hot water consumed by the clothes washer including all deep and spray rinses, for the maximum (Rx), minimum (Rn), and, if required by section 3.5.3 of this appendix, average (Ra) test load sizes or water fill levels.

    3.7.2 Measure the amount of electrical energy consumed by the clothes washer to heat the rinse water only, including all deep and spray rinses, for the maximum (ERx), minimum (ERn), and, if required by section 3.5.3 of this appendix, average (ERa) test load sizes or water fill levels.

    4.2.3 Water factor. Calculate the water factor, WF, expressed in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (or liters per cycle per liter), as:

    WF = QT/C where: QT = As defined in section 4.2.2 of this appendix. C = As defined in section 3.1.6 of this appendix.

    4.4 Modified energy factor. Calculate the modified energy factor, MEF, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (or liters per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined as:

    MEF = C/(ETE + DE) where: C = As defined in section 3.1.6 of this appendix. ETE = As defined in section 4.1.7 of this appendix. DE = As defined in section 4.3 of this appendix.
    3. Appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 is amended by revising sections 3.8.2.6, 3.8.3.2, 3.8.3.4, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.12, 4.2.13, 4.5, and 4.6 to read as follows: Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

    3.8.2.6 Apply the RMC correction curve described in section 7 of appendix J3 to this subpart to calculate the corrected remaining moisture content, RMCcorr, expressed as a percentage as follows:

    RMCcorr = (A × RMCx + B) × 100% where: A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined in section 6.1 of appendix J3 to this subpart. RMCx = As defined in section 3.8.2.5 of this appendix.

    3.8.3.2 Apply the RMC correction curve described in section 7 of appendix J3 to this subpart to calculate the corrected remaining moisture content for Cold Wash/Cold Rinse, RMCCOLD,corr, expressed as a percentage, as follows:

    RMCCOLD,corr = (A × RMCCOLD + B) × 100% where: A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined in section 6.1 of appendix J3 to this subpart. RMCCOLD = As defined in section 3.8.3.1 of this appendix.

    3.8.3.4 Apply the RMC correction curve described in section 7 of appendix J3 to this subpart to calculate the corrected remaining moisture content for Warm Wash/Warm Rinse, RMCWARM,corr, expressed as a percentage, as follows:

    RMCWARM,corr = (A × RMCWARM + B) × 100% where: A and B are the coefficients of the RMC correction curve as defined in section 6.1 of appendix J3 to this subpart. RMCWARM = As defined in section 3.8.3.3 of this appendix.

    4.2.4 Per-cycle water consumption for Warm Wash/Warm Rinse. Calculate the maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycle and defined as:

    Qwwmax = [Hwwx + Cwwx] Qwwavg = [Hwwa + Cwwa] Qwwmin = [Hwwn + Cwwn] where: Hwwx, Cwwx, Hwwa, Cwwa, Hwwn, and Cwwn are defined in section 3.6 of this appendix.

    4.2.5 Per-cycle water consumption for Cold Wash/Cold Rinse. Calculate the maximum, average, and minimum total water consumption, expressed in gallons per cycle (or liters per cycle), for the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycle and defined as:

    Qcmax = [Hcx + Ccx] Qcavg = [Hca + Cca] Qcmin = [Hcn + Ccn] where: Hcx, Ccx, Hca, Cca, Hcn, and Ccn are defined in section 3.7 of this appendix.

    4.2.12 Water factor. Calculate the water factor, WF, expressed in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (or liters per cycle per liter), as:

    WF = QcT/C where: QcT = As defined in section 4.2.10 of this appendix. C = As defined in section 3.1.7 of this appendix.

    4.2.13 Integrated water factor. Calculate the integrated water factor, IWF, expressed in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (or liters per cycle per liter), as:

    IWF = QT/C where: QT = As defined in section 4.2.11 of this appendix. C = As defined in section 3.1.7 of this appendix.

    4.5 Modified energy factor. Calculate the modified energy factor, MEF, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (or liters per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined as:

    MEF = C/(ETE + DE) where: C = As defined in section 3.1.7 of this appendix. ETE = As defined in section 4.1.7 of this appendix. DE = As defined in section 4.3 of this appendix.

    4.6 Integrated modified energy factor. Calculate the integrated modified energy factor, IMEF, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (or liters per kilowatt-hour per cycle) and defined as:

    IMEF = C/(ETE + DE + ETLP) where: C = As defined in section 3.1.7 of this appendix. ETE = As defined in section 4.1.7 of this appendix. DE = As defined in section 4.3 of this appendix. ETLP = As defined in section 4.4 of this appendix.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25963 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Parts 352 and 361 RIN 3064-AE35 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability Minority and Women Outreach Program Contracting AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC is updating its regulations, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability, and Minority and Women Outreach Program Contracting, to reflect a name change from the Agency's Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO) to the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI).

    DATES:

    This final rule will become effective on October 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melodee Brooks, Senior Deputy Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, (703) 562-6090; or Robert Lee, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562-2020, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429-0002.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Following a recent review, the FDIC is updating 12 CFR parts 352 and 361 to reflect a name change from the FDIC Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity to the FDIC Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

    Part 352 is the FDIC's regulation on nondiscrimination on the basis of disability and is intended to implement sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities conducted by a federal executive agency. Section 508 requires federal agencies to utilize electronic and information technology that is designed to allow individuals with disabilities access that is comparable to the access of those who are not disabled, unless such agency would incur an undue burden. Subsections 352.9(b) and 352.10 set forth information that is no longer accurate, as the Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity's responsibilities and employees were transferred to the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, a new office established by the FDIC Board of Directors pursuant to Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Act). Section 342 of the Act is codified at 12 U.S.C. 5452. The remaining contact information for OMWI remains the same as that of the predecessor office—3501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226; (877) 275-3342 or (703) 562-2473 (TTY).

    Part 361 established in regulatory form the FDIC's Minority and Woman Outreach Program (MWOP) to ensure that minority- and women-owned businesses (MWOBs) are given the opportunity to participate fully in all contracts entered into by the FDIC as it is the FDIC's policy that minorities and women, and businesses owned by them have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contracts awarded by the FDIC. Subsections 361.5 and 361.6(a) set forth information that is no longer accurate, as the Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity's responsibilities and employees have been transferred to the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

    II. Final Rule

    The final rule for parts 352 and 361 updates the name of the FDIC Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO) to the FDIC Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI). The amendments are procedural and non-substantive in nature, and would update the regulations to be consistent with the FDIC's practices and procedures. The revisions to each of the sections cited below in the List of Subjects simply reflect the change in office name.

    III. Exemption From Public Notice and Comment

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553) sets forth requirements for providing the general public notice of, and the opportunity to comment on, proposed agency rules. However, unless notice or hearing is required by statute, those requirements do not apply:

    (A) To interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or

    (B) When the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the findings and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

    The FDIC is updating parts 352 and 361 to reflect a name change from the FDIC Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity to the FDIC Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. Since the changes relate to agency organization, procedure, or practice, and because the FDIC has determined for good cause that public notice and comment are unnecessary, the rules are being published in final form without public notice and comment.

    IV. Effective Dates

    Section 553 of the APA provides that a regulation shall not be made effective less than 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register except, among other things, upon a finding of “good cause” by the agency. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). The FDIC finds that there is good cause to make the amendments to parts 352 and 361 effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register because the name change from the Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO) to the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) is procedural and non-substantive.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). As noted previously, the FDIC has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the final rule amending part 352. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply to this rulemaking for parts 352 and 361.

    VI. The Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final rule for parts 352 and 361 does not contain any requirements for the collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).

    VII. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The FDIC has determined that the final rule for parts 352 and 361 will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).

    VIII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule for parts 352 and 361 is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)(Title II, Pub. L. 104-121). As required by SBREFA, the FDIC will file appropriate reports with Congress and the Government Accountability Office so that the final rule for parts 352 or 361 may be reviewed.

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 352

    Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, Access to electronic and information technology, Employment, Communications.

    12 CFR Part 361

    Minority and Women Outreach Program Contracting.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reason set forth in the preamble, parts 352 and 361 of Chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

    PART 352—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY 1. The authority citation for part 352 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1819(a), 29 U.S.C. 794d.

    § 352.9 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 352.9(b) by removing the term “Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO)” and adding in its place “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI).”
    § 352.10 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 352.10: a. In paragraph (c) by removing the term “Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity” and adding in its place “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” wherever it occurs and by removing the term “ODEO” and adding in its place “OMWI” wherever it occurs; and b. In paragraphs (e) introductory text, (g), (h), and (i) by removing the term “ODEO” and adding in its place “OMWI” wherever it occurs. PART 361—MINORITY AND WOMEN OUTREACH PROGRAM CONTRACTING 4. The authority citation for part 361 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1833e.

    § 361.5 [Amended]
    9. Amend § 361.5, in paragraph (a), by removing the term “Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO)” and adding in its place “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI)” and in paragraphs (a) and (b), by removing the term “ODEO” and adding in its place “OMWI.”
    § 361.6 [Amended]
    10. Revise § 361.6(a) by removing the term “ODEO” and adding in its place “OMWI” wherever it occurs. Dated this 13th day of October, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26391 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0252; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-1] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ashland, VA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E Airspace at Ashland, VA as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Hanover County Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On March 9, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hanover County Municipal Airport, Ashland, VA. (80 FR 12357). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Hanover County Municipal Airport, Ashland, VA, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9YZ, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth AEA VA E5 Ashland, VA [Amended] Hanover County Municipal Airport, VA (Lat. 37°42′32″ N., long. 77°26′12″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Hanover County Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 2, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25901 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0037; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-3] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newport, NH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E Airspace at Newport, NH, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Parlin Field Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On August 14, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Parlin Field Airport, Newport, NH, (80 FR 48766). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.1-mile radius of Parlin Field Airport, Newport, NH, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Parlin Field Airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE NH E5 Newport, NH [New] Parlin Field Airport, NH (Lat. 43°23′14″ N., long. 72°11′16″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.1-mile radius of Parlin Field Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 2, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25900 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1136; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-12] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E Airspace; Mountain Home, ID AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID. The FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace area by increasing the Class D airspace and reducing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for arriving and departing aircraft at the airport and to change from navigation aids to geographic coordinate references in the legal description. This action updates the geographic coordinates of Mountain Home Municipal Airport, Mountain Home, ID.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone (425) 203-4500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On July 28, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID, (80 FR 44896). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from Mr. Ted Thompson expressing concern about the reduction of Class E airspace to the west of Mountain Home Municipal airport if an instrument approach is established from the west. In accordance with FAA Joint Order 7400.2K, airspace is established based upon existing procedures. Any changes to airspace that would be required by the development of a new instrument procedure would be addressed at that time. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found slight changes were necessary in the geographic coordinates noted in the legal description of the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above surface.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E surface area airspace as an extension at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID. After a review, the FAA found an increase of the Class D airspace necessary to protect instrument arrival procedures at the airport. Class D airspace is extended upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 6.5 miles to the southeast and northwest of the airport. Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 6.5 miles to the southeast and northwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 7.7-mile radius northeast of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 12.4 miles to the northeast, and 17.7 miles to the east. The lateral boundary for that Class E airspace extending from 1,200 feet above the surface is defined utilizing latitude and longitude reference points instead of Federal airway reference, and does not change the lateral boundaries or operating requirements of the 1,200 foot airspace. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Mountain Home Municipal Airport, Mountain Home, ID.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace ANM ID D Mountain Home, ID [Modified] Mountain Home AFB, ID (Lat. 43°02′37″ N., long. 115°52′21″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Mountain Home AFB and within 2 miles each side of the 135° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 315° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles northwest of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas ANM ID E2 Mountain Home, ID [Modified] Mountain Home AFB, ID (Lat. 43°02′37″ N., long. 115°52′21″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of the Mountain Home AFB, and within 2 miles each side of the 135° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 315° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles northwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ANM ID E4 Mountain Home, ID [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth ANM ID E5 Mountain Home, ID [Modified] Mountain Home AFB, ID (Lat. 43°02′37″ N., long. 115°52′21″ W.) Mountain Home Municipal Airport (Lat. 43°07′54″ N., long. 115°43′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43°06′48″ N., long. 115°28′39″ W.; to lat. 43°02′06″ N., long. 115°31′12″ W.; to lat. 43°03′25″ N., long. 115°36′21″ W.; to lat. 42°54′24″ N., long. 115°48′41″ W.; to lat. 42°54′24″ N., long. 115°56′47″ W.; to lat. 43°00′12″ N., long. 116°04′42″ W.; to lat. 43°06′51″ N., long. 116°01′24″ W.; to lat. 43°09′22″ N., long. 115°57′57″ W.; to lat. 43°12′54″ N., long. 115°42′51″ W., thence to point of beginning, that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43°33′06″ N., long. 116°11′32″ W.; to lat. 42°48′43″ N., long. 115°00′21″ W.; to lat. 42°23′58″ N., long. 115°00′21″ W.; to lat. 42°23′58″ N., long. 115°18′28″ W.; thence clockwise along the 46.0-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB to lat. 43°09′17″ N., long. 116°54′28″ W.; thence to point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 1, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25991 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0967; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-19] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ponce, PR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E Airspace at Ponce, PR, as the PONCE VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid, (VORTAC) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Mercedita Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On July 16, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E surface area airspace at Mercedita Airport, Ponce, PR, due to the decommissioning of the Ponce VORTAC (80 FR 42068). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E surface area airspace at Mercedita Airport, Ponce, PR.

    Airspace reconfiguration to within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Ponce VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71:

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas ASO PR E2 Ponce, PR [Amended] Mercedita Airport, PR (Lat. 18°00′30″ N., long. 66°33′47″ W.)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of Mercedita Airport. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 2, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25853 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2270; Airspace Docket No. 12-AWP-11] Establishment of Class E Airspace, Cottonwood, AZ AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace at Cottonwood Airport, Cottonwood, AZ, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at the airport. The FAA found establishment of controlled airspace necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone (425) 203-4500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On August 5, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cottonwood Airport, Cottonwood, AZ, (80 FR 46525). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cottonwood Airport, Cottonwood, AZ. New standard instrument approach procedures have been developed for IFR operations at the airport. The Class E airspace is established to within a 4-mile radius of Cottonwood Airport, with a segment extending from the 4-mile radius to 15 miles southeast of the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth AWP AZ E5 Cottonwood, AZ [New] Cottonwood Airport, AZ (Lat. 34°43′48″ N., long. 112°02′07″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of Cottonwood Airport excluding that airspace southwest of a line beginning where the 299° bearing from the airport intersects the 4-mile radius to a point where the 181° bearing from the airport intersects the 4-mile radius; and that airspace 1.8 miles southwest and 1.2 miles northeast of the 150° bearing from the 4-mile radius to 15 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 1, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26002 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1833; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-7] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Marshall, AR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action s establishes Class E airspace at Marshall, AR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Searcy County Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On August 13, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Searcy County Airport, Marshall, AR, copied incorrectly as Concordia Parish Airport, (80 FR 48470). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11.2-mile radius of Searcy County Airport, Marshall, AR, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW AR E5 Marshall, AR [New] Searcy County Airport, AR (Lat. 35°53′55″ N., long. 092°39′23″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 11.2-mile radius of Searcy County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 7, 2015. Robert W. Beck, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26095 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31041; Amdt. No. 3664] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 16, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

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

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

    * * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC Number FDC Date Subject 12-Nov-15 IL Champaign/Urbana University Of Illinois-Willard 5/0256 09/17/15 RADAR 1, Amdt 6B. 12-Nov-15 TX Fredericksburg Gillespie County 5/0259 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1B. 12-Nov-15 KS Atchison Amelia Earhart 5/0276 09/17/15 VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 16, Amdt 4A. 12-Nov-15 KS Atchison Amelia Earhart 5/0277 09/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 16, Orig-A. 12-Nov-15 MI Traverse City Cherry Capital 5/0652 09/08/15 NDB RWY 28, Amdt 11. 12-Nov-15 TX Harlingen Valley Intl 5/0916 09/08/15 VOR/DME RWY 17L, Orig. 12-Nov-15 MI Holland West Michigan Rgnl 5/1847 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 2B. 12-Nov-15 WI Middleton Middleton Muni-Morey Field 5/1853 09/17/15 VOR RWY 10, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 WI Prairie Du Chien Prairie Du Chien Muni 5/1859 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-B. 12-Nov-15 AL Andalusia/Opp South Alabama Rgnl At Bill Benton Field 5/1900 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 2A. 12-Nov-15 AL Andalusia/Opp South Alabama Rgnl At Bill Benton Field 5/1901 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2A. 12-Nov-15 KS Garden City Garden City Rgnl 5/2041 09/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 12, Orig-A. 12-Nov-15 KS Garden City Garden City Rgnl 5/2043 09/17/15 VOR RWY 17, Amdt 11. 12-Nov-15 KS Garden City Garden City Rgnl 5/2045 09/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 17, Amdt 2. 12-Nov-15 KS Garden City Garden City Rgnl 5/2047 09/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 30, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 ME Waterville Waterville Robert Lafleur 5/2143 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 ME Waterville Waterville Robert Lafleur 5/2145 09/17/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 5, Amdt 4. 12-Nov-15 TN Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport Tri-Cities Rgnl Tn/Va 5/2692 09/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 TX Madisonville Madisonville Muni 5/2950 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A. 12-Nov-15 TX Madisonville Madisonville Muni 5/2951 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 12-Nov-15 TX Madisonville Madisonville Muni 5/2952 09/08/15 VOR/DME RWY 18, Amdt 2A. 12-Nov-15 NC Lincolnton Lincolnton-Lincoln County Rgnl 5/3181 09/08/15 NDB RWY 23, Amdt 3A. 12-Nov-15 NC Lincolnton Lincolnton-Lincoln County Rgnl 5/3184 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 TX Athens Athens Muni 5/3455 09/10/15 NDB RWY 35, Amdt 4C. 12-Nov-15 PA Allentown Lehigh Valley Intl 5/3648 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 PA Allentown Lehigh Valley Intl 5/3649 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2. 12-Nov-15 PA Allentown Lehigh Valley Intl 5/3656 09/08/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 23. 12-Nov-15 PA Allentown Lehigh Valley Intl 5/3659 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 PA Allentown Lehigh Valley Intl 5/3662 09/08/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 PA Allentown Lehigh Valley Intl 5/3663 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 MN Faribault Faribault Muni 5/4326 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 MN Faribault Faribault Muni 5/4327 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4329 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4330 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4339 09/08/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Orig-A. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4340 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4341 09/08/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 18, Amdt 1B. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4366 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4367 09/08/15 VOR OR TACAN RWY 36, Orig-B. 12-Nov-15 ND Fargo Hector Intl 5/4368 09/08/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 OH Port Clinton Carl R Keller Field 5/4485 09/17/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 6. 12-Nov-15 PA Reedsville Mifflin County 5/4779 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig. 12-Nov-15 PA Reedsville Mifflin County 5/4780 09/08/15 LOC RWY 6, Amdt 8A. 12-Nov-15 PA Reedsville Mifflin County 5/4781 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig. 12-Nov-15 FL Williston Williston Muni 5/4932 09/09/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig. 12-Nov-15 FL Williston Williston Muni 5/4933 09/09/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig. 12-Nov-15 FL Williston Williston Muni 5/4936 09/09/15 VOR RWY 23, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 SC Newberry Newberry County 5/6291 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig. 12-Nov-15 SC Newberry Newberry County 5/6292 09/10/15 NDB RWY 22, Amdt 6A. 12-Nov-15 SC Newberry Newberry County 5/6293 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig. 12-Nov-15 FL Marathon The Florida Keys Marathon 5/6806 09/10/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 GA Vidalia Vidalia Rgnl 5/6816 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2. 12-Nov-15 AZ Nogales Nogales Intl 5/7101 09/10/15 NDB OR GPS-C, Amdt 2C. 12-Nov-15 AZ Nogales Nogales Intl 5/7102 09/10/15 VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 3B. 12-Nov-15 AZ Nogales Nogales Intl 5/7103 09/10/15 VOR/DME OR GPS-B, Amdt 2B. 12-Nov-15 KS Mc Pherson Mc Pherson 5/7358 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig. 12-Nov-15 KS Mc Pherson Mc Pherson 5/7359 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 12-Nov-15 KS Mc Pherson Mc Pherson 5/7360 09/17/15 VOR/DME RWY 36, Amdt 6. 12-Nov-15 TN Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport Tri-Cities Rgnl Tn/Va 5/7392 09/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 TN Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport Tri-Cities Rgnl Tn/Va 5/7417 09/16/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 3A. 12-Nov-15 IA Mason City Mason City Muni 5/7778 09/08/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 IA Mason City Mason City Muni 5/7807 09/08/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 12-Nov-15 FL Palm Coast Flagler County 5/8047 09/10/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 1. 12-Nov-15 FL Palm Coast Flagler County 5/8048 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1B. 12-Nov-15 FL Palm Coast Flagler County 5/8049 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 FL Palm Coast Flagler County 5/8056 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-C. 12-Nov-15 FL Palm Coast Flagler County 5/8058 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-C. 12-Nov-15 WI Manitowish Waters Manitowish Waters 5/8448 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig. 12-Nov-15 WI Manitowish Waters Manitowish Waters 5/8450 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig. 12-Nov-15 MI West Branch West Branch Community 5/8471 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig. 12-Nov-15 MI West Branch West Branch Community 5/8474 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig. 12-Nov-15 MI West Branch West Branch Community 5/8476 09/10/15 VOR RWY 27, Orig-E. 12-Nov-15 OH Columbus Rickenbacker Intl 5/9069 09/16/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 5L, Amdt 1A. 12-Nov-15 KY Bardstown Samuels Field 5/9073 09/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig. 12-Nov-15 KY Bardstown Samuels Field 5/9076 09/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig. 12-Nov-15 GA Lagrange Lagrange-Callaway 5/9119 09/17/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-A. 12-Nov-15 GA Lagrange Lagrange-Callaway 5/9125 09/17/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 2. 12-Nov-15 MN Ely Ely Muni 5/9213 09/10/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1A.
    [FR Doc. 2015-25553 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31040; Amdt. No. 3663] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 16, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

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

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 25, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 12 NOVEMBER 2015 Arcata/Eureka, CA, Arcata, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1C Greenville, PA, Greenville Muni, RNAV (GPS-B, Orig Greenville, PA, Greenville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Greenville, PA, Greenville Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2 Henderson, TX, Rusk County, NDB-B, Amdt 1, CANCELED Luray, VA, Luray Caverns, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Lyndonville, VT, Caledonia County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Effective 10 DECEMBER 2015 Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 12, Amdt 6, CANCELED Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 19C, Amdt 8, CANCELED Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 19L, Amdt 8, CANCELED Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 19R, Orig, CANCELED Georgetown, DE, Sussex County, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 5A, CANCELED Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, Amdt 3B Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1 Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2 Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 14 Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, VOR/DME RWY 3, Amdt 3 Glasgow, KY, Glasgow Muni, SDF RWY 8, Amdt 11, CANCELED Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 14 Greenville, ME, Greenville SPB, NDB-A, Amdt 5, CANCELED Old Town, ME, Dewitt Fld, Old Town Muni, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 6A, CANCELED Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RADAR 1, Amdt 5A, CANCELED Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18L, Amdt 9 Concord, NC, Concord Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1 Trenton, NJ, Trenton Mercer, NDB RWY 6, Amdt 7A, CANCELED Louisa, VA, Louisa County/Freeman Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 2 Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1 Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 10 Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, VOR RWY 28, Amdt 10
    [FR Doc. 2015-25555 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0948] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the James River Bridge (US 17 and VA 258) across the James River, mile 5.0, between Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate work on electrical control and power wiring systems on the bridge.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on October 16, 2015, until 8 p.m. on October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0948], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6222, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the James River Bridge (US 17 and VA 258), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to facilitate work on electrical control and power wiring systems on the bridge. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. on October 16, 2015 until 8 p.m. on October 19, 2015. The James River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U. S. government vessels, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with U. S. government and commercial waterway users.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: October 13,2015. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26358 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0944] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth and Chesapeake, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Belt Line Railroad Bridge across the South Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile 2.6, between Portsmouth and Chesapeake, VA. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate a tie replacement project.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from October 16, 2015 until 6 p.m. on October 23, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on October 16, 2015, until October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0944], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6222, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company, who owns and operates the Belt Line Railroad Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to facilitate a tie replacement project on the bridge. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet above mean high water.

    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.997(a). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., except for scheduled daily openings at 9 a.m., 12 noon, and 3 p.m., from October 16, 2015 through October 23, 2015. During this temporary deviation, the bridge will operate per 33 CFR 117.997(a) from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. The South Branch of the Elizabeth River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government vessels, small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26359 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0240; FRL-9935-56-Region 9] Approval of Implementation Plans; Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008 Ozone Standard Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the emission inventory, emission statements, reasonably available control technology corrections and the vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 2008 eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Marginal nonattainment area. We are approving these revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 15, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by November 16, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0240 by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Nancy Levin (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: 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. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for further instructions. 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. For the full EPA public comment policy and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions III. Analysis of the State's Submittal A. Base Year Emissions Inventory B. Emission Statements C. Reasonably Available Control Technology Corrections D. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs E. Permit Programs: Nonattainment Area Preconstruction, New Source Review F. Offset Requirements G. Transportation Conformity IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA strengthened the primary and secondary eight-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm (annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour concentration, averaged over three years) (73 FR 16436).1 In accordance with section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must designate an area “nonattainment” if it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. The EPA designated the Phoenix-Mesa (hereinafter referred to as “Maricopa”) area as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012, effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088). The Maricopa nonattainment area (NAA), which includes a portion of Maricopa County and a portion of Pinal County, was classified by operation of law as a Marginal nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.303). The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the “Maricopa Association of Governments 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan—Submittal of Marginal Area requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2014)” (“MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan” or “Submittal”) on July 2, 2014.

    1 Since the 2008 primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are identical, for convenience, we refer to both as “the 2008 ozone NAAQS” or “the 2008 ozone standards.”

    The EPA proposed the 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) on June 6, 2013 (78 FR 34178) and finalized the SRR on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA), effective April 6, 2015. The SRR both promulgated implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS.2

    2 The SRR revokes the 1997 NAAQS, but not all of the requirements for implementing the 1997 NAAQS.

    On August 27, 2015, the EPA proposed to reclassify the Maricopa NAA as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQs because the Maricopa NAA failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment deadline of July 20, 2015 (80 FR 51992). Should this action be finalized, the Maricopa NAA would be subject to additional requirements, including (1) an attainment demonstration; (2) provisions for reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measures (RACM); (3) reasonable further progress (RFP) reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions; (4) contingency measures; (5) a vehicle inspection and maintenance program; and (6) NOX and VOC emission offsets at a ratio of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (see 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA and CAA sections 182(b) and 172(c)). A SIP revision addressing all of these requirements would be due to the EPA by January 1, 2017.3

    3 80 FR 51992, 51999.

    II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(1) and 110(l) require states to provide reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that we have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to act on the SIP submittal (see CAA section 110(k)(2)).

    ADEQ's Submittal documents the public review process followed by MAG and ADEQ in adopting the “MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan—Submittal of Marginal Area Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area” prior to submittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP (See Appendix B.1). In addition, ADEQ's Submittal documents the adoption of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan by the MAG Regional Council and includes a letter dated June 27, 2014 from MAG to ADEQ, requesting that ADEQ submit the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan to the EPA for approval.

    Based on the documentation included in ADEQ's Submittal, we find that the submittal of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan, as a SIP revision, satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the Act requiring states to provide reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. The MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan became complete by operation of law on January 2, 2015 pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B). The technical support document (TSD) for our action has more information on our evaluation.

    III. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    For Marginal nonattainment areas, states are required to comply with sections 172(c) and 182(a) of the Act. Marginal areas have up to three years from the effective date of designation to attain the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.1103(a)). Unlike areas classified as Moderate and above, Marginal areas are not required to submit an attainment demonstration or RFP provisions (see CAA section 182(a) and 80 FR 12268). Below we summarize the CAA and SRR requirements, how they are addressed in the Submittal, and our recommended action. Please refer to the TSD in the docket for this action for additional information.

    A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115(a) require states to submit a “base year inventory” for each 2008 ozone nonattainment area within two years of the effective date of designation. This inventory must be “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section 182(a)(1)” (40 CFR 51.1100(bb), see also CAA section 172(c)(3)). The inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan, which is typically the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) (see 40 CFR 51.1115(a), 51.1110(b)). The emission values in the base year must be “actual ozone season day emissions,” i.e. “an average day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday.” (40 CFR 51.1115(c), 51.1100(cc)).

    2. Summary of the State's Submittal

    The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) prepared a base year emissions inventory, with the assistance of MAG, and MAG submitted the base year inventory as part of the MAG 2014 Eight-hour Ozone Plan.4 MCAQD selected 2011 as the base year. The base year inventory includes ozone season-day emissions from point sources, area sources, nonroad mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. Appendix A, Exhibit 1 of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan includes a description of the methods used to estimate emissions for each category (or subcategory).

    4 MAG 2014 Eight-hour Ozone Plan, Table 1—Summary Table of Nonattainment Area Emissions from the Maricopa County Air Quality Department 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Ozone Precursors, February 2014, page 5. See also Appendix A, Exhibit 1.

    The following is a summary of the 2011 Maricopa NAA Emissions Inventory.5

    5 MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan, Table 1, pp. 5-6.

    Maricopa NAA 2011 Base Year Eight-Hour Ozone Season Day Emission Inventory [July-September] Category VOC lbs/day % of Total NOX lbs/day % of Total Point sources 4,908 1 15,407 3.1 Area sources: Fuel combustion 593 0.1 23,484 4.8 Industrial processes 17,452 4 1,490 0.3 Solvent use 166,557 34 0 0 Storage/transport 28,766 6 0 0 Waste treatment/disposal 838 0 316 0.1 Miscellaneous area sources 13,650 3 6,532 1.3 Mobile—Non road sources 111,798 23 141,444 28.8 Mobile—On road sources 148,186 30 301,824 61.5 Total (excluding biogenic) * 492,748 100 490,495 100.0 * Differences due to rounding.

    The TSD for this action contains more information about how MCAQD developed the emission inventory (EI) data for each category of sources.

    3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal

    The EPA has reviewed the 2011 ozone season day base year inventory including emission estimates for point source, area source, nonroad and onroad sources. We find that MCAQD's selection of 2011 as the base year is appropriate because 2011 was the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory was required to be submitted to the EPA under the AERR (see 40 CFR 51.30(b)). We also find that the data elements in the base year inventory are “consistent with the detail” required by the AERR. Generally, MCAQD used published emission factors from EPA's National Emissions Inventory,6 made assumptions consistent with the EPA's Emission Inventory Improvement Program Guidance,7 and used the most recent EPA models available at the time of inventory preparation. In addition, the Submittal provides sufficient documentation and explanation to allow the EPA to make a determination on the acceptability of the base year inventory.

    6 The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions of air pollutants from all air emissions sources. The NEI is prepared every three years by the EPA based primarily upon emission estimates and emission model inputs provided by State, Local and Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions, and supplemented by data developed by the EPA. See http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.

    7 See, e.g., EPA, Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), Volume III, Chapter 1. Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Development (Revised Final January 2001), Chapter 11. Gasoline Marketing (Stage I and Stage II) (Revised Final January 2001); Chapter 18. Structure Fires (Revised Final January 2001), and Area Source Category Method Abstract—Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, May 2001.

    However, we believe that MCAQD's initial selection of July-September as the basis for calculating the “ozone season day emissions” was not appropriate because it was based on 1981-1991 exceedance data for a previous ozone NAAQS.8 Accordingly, we requested that MCAQD review more recent ozone monitoring data. Upon review of these data, MCAQD determined that the appropriate months to use to calculate ozone season day emissions are June-August.9 Therefore, MCAQD provided a “recast” ozone season day EI for June-August.10 The MCAQD's “recast” analysis shows that, compared with the July-September EI, the June-August EI showed a small net increase in season day emissions for anthropogenic sources: VOC increased 0.41 and NOX increased 2.15. MCAQD also added emission reduction credits (ERCs) to the June-August EI for point sources. Total VOC ERCs were adjusted from 114.7 to 213.03 tons/year (1,167 lbs/season day) and total NOX ERCs were adjusted from 9.8 to 14.14 tons/year (77.5 lbs/season day) to account for additional VOC and NOX ERCs.11

    8See Appendix A, Exhibit 1: 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Ozone Precursors for the Maricopa County, Arizona, Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area. Maricopa County Air Quality Department. February 2014. An “exceedance” is an ambient concentration that exceeds the relevant NAAQS.

    9 Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Ozone Precursors for the Maricopa County, Arizona, Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, Addendum, August 2015, section 3.1.

    10 Ibid. section 3.2.

    11 ERCs from Penn Racquet Sports Inc. (March 6, 2009). See Addendum, Table A.1.

    We agree with MCAQD that using June-August to calculate ozone season day emissions for the base year inventory is appropriate for the Maricopa NAA, given that it was the three-month period with the highest average Air Quality Index value and the greatest number of exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard in the NAA in 2011. However, in light of the relatively small differences in total anthropogenic emissions between the June-August 2011 and July-September 2011 periods, we do not believe it is necessary for MCAQD, MAG and ADEQ to submit a formal SIP revision reflecting the June-August period at this time. Accordingly, we find that the base year emission estimates approaches and methodologies are acceptable and that the state has met the requirements of the Act and the SRR with respect to base year inventories. We recommend that a revised 2011 season-day EI based on June-August data be included as part of a subsequent SIP revision to meet the CAA's Moderate ozone nonattainment area requirements, as described above.

    B. Emission Statements 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires States to submit a SIP revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or NOX to provide the State with statements of actual emissions from such sources. Statements must be submitted at least every year and must contain a certification that the information contained in the statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual certifying the statement. Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) allows States to waive the emission statement requirement for any class or category of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year of VOCs or NOX, if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as part of the baseline or periodic inventory. This inventory must be based on the use of the emission factors established by the EPA or other methods acceptable to the EPA.

    2. Summary of the State's Submittal

    ADEQ references three SIP-approved rules as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B): Maricopa County Rule 100, Section 500—Monitoring and Records, ADEQ Rule 18-2-327—Annual Emissions Inventory Questionnaire and Pinal County rule PG3-1-103—Annual EI questionnaire.

    3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal

    Maricopa County Rule 100 (Section 500, Subsection 503) (approved into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66405)) requires owners/operators of sources that emit NOX or VOC to submit, upon request of the Control Officer, emission statements showing actual or estimated actual emissions of NOX and VOC, containing (at a minimum) all information required by Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule,12 40 CFR subpart A, appendix A, table 2a.13 Section 503 also requires that Emissions Statements be submitted annually. The Control Officer may waive this requirement for the owner/operator of any source that emits less than 25 tons per year of NOX or VOC with an approved emission inventory for sources based on AP-42 or other methodologies approved by the EPA.

    12 The Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule is now part of the AERR (see 73 FR 76539).

    13 Appendix G of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules, section 4, specifies that 40 CFR, Subpart A, Appendix A, Table 2a is incorporated by reference as of July 1, 2014. Table 2a was revised on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8787, 8790).

    ADEQ Rule 18-2-327, Annual Emissions Inventory Questionnaire (approved into the Arizona SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66405)), requires every source subject to air permit requirements to complete and submit an annual emissions inventory questionnaire including facility contact information, process and control device descriptions, and a quantification of actual emissions of regulated air pollutants 14 using the appropriate quantification method as described in the rule.

    14 Regulated air pollutant is defined by SIP-approved ADEQ rule R18-2-101, section 120 to include NOX and VOC. (See 40 CFR 52.120(c)(162)(i)(A)(2),

    Pinal County Rule PG3-1-103 (approved into the Arizona SIP on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79742)) requires every source that is subject to a permit or obtains an authorization to operate, to complete and submit to the Control Officer an annual emissions inventory questionnaire. The questionnaire must include the source's name, address, contact information, address, and process information (e.g., including design capacity, operations schedule, emission control devices).15

    15 On September 27, 2006 ADEQ submitted an amendment to PG Rule 3-1-103, however, the change does not substantively change the rule. Rather it reflected ADEQ's reclassification of Class A and Class B permits to Class I, Class II, and Class III. Under this amendment, the term “Class B permits” is replaced by “Class II or Class II permits.”

    Based on the contents of these rules, we find that Arizona has met the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for emission statements.

    C. Reasonably Available Control Technology Corrections 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the State to submit, within six months of classification under section 181(a), all rules and corrections to existing RACT rules that were required under section 172(b) of the old (pre-1990 Amendments) CAA. Newly designated nonattainment areas are not subject to the RACT “fix-ups” required by section 182(a)(2)(A) because they were not subject to section 172(b) of the old law (see 57 FR 13498, 13503).

    2. Summary of the State's Submittal

    The Submittal lists the SIP-approved Rules that apply to source categories subject to CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) and notes that the EPA approved Arizona's RACT demonstration for the Maricopa County 1-hour Serious Area Ozone NAA on June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34362).

    3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal

    As noted in the Submittal, the EPA previously determined that Arizona had met the VOC RACT requirements under section 182(a)(2)(A) for the Maricopa one-hour ozone NAA (see 70 FR 13435 and 70 FR 34363). Although the NAA for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard is larger than that the one-hour NAA, only the original one-hour area is subject to the RACT correction requirement of 182(a)(2)(A). Therefore, we find that Arizona has met the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) with respect to the Maricopa 2008 eight-hour ozone NAA.

    D. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Section 182(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act requires the State to submit a revision, immediately after November 15, 1990, to correct any pre-1990 schedules for vehicle emission control inspection and maintenance programs, immediately after November 15, 1990. In addition, section 182(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires that the State shall review, revise, update, and republish in the Federal Register the guidance for the States for motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs within 1 year of November 15, 1990. The EPA's I/M regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S (“Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements”), sections 51.350 through 51.373. As explained in the preambles to proposed and final SRR, no new vehicle I/M programs are currently required for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (78 FR 34194-34196, 80 FR 12283).

    2. Summary of the State's Submittal

    The Submittal notes that the EPA approved ADEQ's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Programs on January 22, 2003, and approved a statutory provision extending the State's vehicle emissions inspection program on December 21, 2009 (74 FR 67819).

    3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal

    As noted in the Submittal, the EPA previously approved an “enhanced” I/M program that exceeds the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(B) for the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area (69 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003)). Therefore, we find that Arizona has met the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) with respect to the Maricopa 2008 eight-hour ozone NAA.

    E. Permit Programs: Nonattainment Area Preconstruction, New Source Review 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the Act, requires states to submit a SIP revision within two years after November 15, 1990 to require pre-construction permits for new or modified major stationary sources in the NAA, and to correct requirements regarding pre-1990 permit programs. However, as explained in the preambles to the EPA's final Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour standard and the final SRR, the EPA considers the submission of new source review (NSR) SIPs due on November 15, 1992 to have fulfilled this CAA requirement (See 75 FR 71683, n. 110, and 80 FR 12267). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the two-year deadline contained in CAA section 182(a)(2)(C)(i) does not apply to subsequent NSR SIPs for revised ozone standards, including the nonattainment NSR SIPs for implementing the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. (Id.) Accordingly, the SRR at 40 CFR 51.1114 sets a deadline of three years from the date of designation for states to submit their nonattainment NSR program SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    2. Summary of the State's Submittal

    The Submittal describes the roles of ADEQ, MCAQD and PCAQCD in implementing the preconstruction permit program in the Maricopa NAA. In particular, the Submittal explains that ADEQ has permitting jurisdiction for the following stationary source categories: smelting of metal ores, coal-fired electric generating stations, petroleum refineries, Portland cement plants, and portable sources. ADEQ also has permitting jurisdiction over other major sources in Pinal County, but has delegated implementation of the major source program to PCAQCD, which implements ADEQ's major NSR rules. MCAQD has jurisdiction over other sources in Maricopa County. The Submittal also described various SIP revisions submitted by ADEQ to meet nonattainment NSR requirements.

    3. EPA Evaluation of the State's Submittal

    The EPA recently finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of various rules that comprise ADEQ's NSR program.16 We expect that ADEQ will revise these rules in the near future. With regard to MCAQD's rules, we note that ADEQ had submitted MCAQD Rule 240—Permits for New Major Sources and Major Modifications to Existing Major Sources to the EPA on August 31, 1995, but withdrew it on April 25, 2014 in order to revise and resubmit it to the EPA for SIP approval. ADEQ published a proposed notice of rulemaking for amendments to Rule 240 and other related rules on August 31, 2015.17 Given the expected submittal of revised ADEQ and MCAQD NSR rules in the near future, we are deferring action on this element of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan at this time.

    16 Final rule, Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source Review (pre-publication version, signed June 29, 2015).

    17 On July 31, 2015 the Arizona Secretary of State published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend MCAQD's rules relating to NSR, including Rule 240. See Arizona Administrative Register (AAR) Vol. 21, Issue 31, page 1302 (July 31, 2015), available at: http://apps.azsos.gov/public_services/register/2015/31/28_county_notices.pdf. It also announced a 30-day comment period that ended August 31, 2015.

    F. Offset Requirements

    CAA Section 173 requires new and modified major sources in nonattainment areas to secure emissions reductions (i.e., “offsets”) to compensate for a proposed emissions increase. For Marginal areas, section 182(a)(4) of the Act sets a general offset ratio of 1.1 to 1 for total VOC and NOX emission reductions as compared to VOC and NOX emission increases. The Submittal references ADEQ Rule R18-2-404(J) and Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, Rule 240, Section 306.3 as fulfilling the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(4). Given the expected submittal of revised ADEQ and MCAQD NSR rules in the near future, we are deferring action on this element of the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan at this time.

    G. Transportation Conformity

    The Submittal lists “Meet Transportation Conformity Requirements—CAA Section 176(c)” as a marginal area requirement. We note that motor vehicle emission budgets, used in transportation conformity determinations, are not required for marginal areas because such areas are not required to submit a “control strategy implementation plan revision.” 18 However, as noted above, the EPA has proposed to reclassify the Maricopa NAA to Moderate nonattainment. If the reclassification is finalized, MAG would be required to develop motor vehicle emission budgets as part of a Moderate area attainment demonstration. In the meantime, MAG may continue to rely on its emission budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,19 which the EPA approved on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55645). Accordingly, we are not taking further action on these budgets at this time.

    18See 40 CFR 93.101.

    19 See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2).

    IV. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan with respect to the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1), (2)(A) and (B), and (3)(B) and is deferring action with respect to the requirements of CAA sections 176(c) and 182(a)(2)(C) and (4). We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule(s). If we receive adverse comments by November 16, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on December 15, 2015.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • does not provide the 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 the 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(172) to read as follows:
    § 52.120 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (172) The following plan was submitted July 2, 2014, by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional materials.

    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

    (1) MAG 2014 Eight-Hour Ozone Plan—Submittal of Marginal Area Requirements for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2014), excluding:

    (i) Sections titled “A Nonattainment Area Preconstruction Permit Program—CAA section 182(a)(2)(C),” “New Source Review—CAA, Title I, Part D,” and “Offset Requirements: 1:1 to 1 (Ratio of Total Emission Reductions of Volatile Organic Compounds to Total Increased Emissions)—CAA Section 182(a)(4)” on pages 8 and 9 and section titled “Meet Transportation Conformity Requirements—CAA Section 176(c)” on pages 10 and 11.

    (ii) Appendices A and B.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26023 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0363; FRL-9933-98] 2-Propen-1-Aminium, N,N-Dimethyl-N-Propenyl-, Chloride, Homopolymer; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-propenyl-, chloride, homopolymer (PolyDADMAC, CAS No. 26062-79-3) when used as an inert ingredient under 40 CFR 180.940(a) as a dispersing aid in food contact surface sanitizing solutions at less than 0.6% by weight in the final product. Scientific & Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C., on behalf of SNF, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of PolyDADMAC.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 16, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 15, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0363, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0363 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 15, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0363, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42462) (FRL-9929-13), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10750) by Scientific & Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C., 3450 Old Washington Rd #303, Waldorf, MD 20602 on behalf of SNF, Inc., 1 Chemical Plant Road, Riceboro, GA 31321. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of PolyDADMAC, (CAS No. 26062-79-3) when used as an inert ingredient as a dispersing aid in pesticide formulations at less than 0.6% by weight. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Scientific & Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C., on behalf of SNF, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by PolyDADMAC as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    A single dose feeding study with rats classified PolyDADMAC as “slightly toxic” at a dose level of 5 milliliter/kilogram (mL/kg) (approx. 2,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg)). The results of two skin irritation studies performed with rabbits indicate that PolyDADMAC is not a skin irritant. In two eye irritation studies performed with PolyDADMAC on rabbits, the results indicate that the product was slightly irritating to the eyes and that the effects were totally reversed within 72 hours following exposure. In an eye study performed with PolyDADMAC on cultured fibroblasts, the results indicate that PolyDADMAC is slightly irritating. In a teratology study performed with Sprague-Dawley rats, the administration of 600 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) of PolyDADMAC, and to a lesser extent, at the 450 and 150 mg/kg/day test groups, elicited a significant reduction in maternal food consumption during the first half of the dosing period. The NOAEL for PolyDADMAC on embryonic development is 600 mg/kg/day. A multi-generational study performed with PolyDADMAC using Sprague-Dawley rats dosed with 0.375, 12.5, and 125 mg/kg/day (oral gavage) showed no increase in reproductive failure, nor were there any effects upon the fertility index or any other F1 or F2 generation parameters. The inferred NOAEL from the study was 125 mg/kg/day. The two genotoxicity studies performed with PolyDADMAC were negative in both an Ames test and in a mouse micronucleus assay. There are no carcinogenicity studies available for PolyDADMAC. However, no significant systemic toxicity was observed in the teratology, multi-generational and mutagenicity toxicity studies. In the absence of significant systemic toxicity, and lack of mutagenicity concerns, PolyDADMAC is not likely to be carcinogenic.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    PolyDADMAC is a large molecular weight chemical which satisfies all of the TSCA Polymer Exemption Rule except for its cationic properties. Generally, high molecular weight polymers are unlikely to be absorbed significantly through any route of exposure. In the case of PolyDADMAC, this is evidenced by: No systemic toxicity up to 600 mg/kg/day in the teratology study, no systemic toxicity in the multi-generational reproduction study up to 125 mg/kg/day, and low acute toxicity. Therefore, no adverse effect level endpoints have been selected for PolyDADMAC, and EPA concludes that it is not necessary to assess quantitative dietary risk or risk from exposure via dermal or inhalation.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to PolyDADMAC, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from PolyDADMAC in food as follows: Acute dietary assessments take into account exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. Chronic dietary assessments take into account dietary food and drinking water as well as food contact surface sanitation uses. In the case of PolyDADMAC, there are no current or proposed crop pesticidal uses; therefore oral exposures from that route (including exposure through drinking water) are not expected. Dietary exposure to PolyDADMAC can occur through its use in food contact sanitizing solutions. However, PolyDADMAC is a large molecular weight chemical which is unlikely to be absorbed significantly through any route of exposure and no endpoints have been selected for it. The Agency has not identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to PolyDADMAC; therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. PolyDADMAC residues may be found in drinking water. However, since an endpoint of concern was not identified for the dietary assessment (food and drinking water), a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was not conducted.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    While there are no current or proposed residential uses for PolyDADMAC, it is possible that PolyDADMAC may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products for which residential exposures may result. However, in the case of PolyDADMAC no applicable endpoints of concern for residential exposures have been identified and a quantitative exposure assessment from residential exposures was not performed.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Teratology and multi-generational studies in laboratory animals indicate that PolyDADMAC caused no increase in reproductive failure nor were there any PolyDADMAC related effects upon the fertility index or any other F1 or F2 generation parameters (e.g., litter size, pup weight, fertility and parturition, reproductive indices such as mating index, fecundity index, male or female fertility indices, etc.). Finally, there was no remarkable pathology noted upon necropsy of any of the test animals. Neurotoxicity was not observed in a reproduction/developmental screening study in rats where neurotoxicity parameters were evaluated.

    3. Conclusion. Based on an assessment of PolyDADMAC, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children, and has conducted a qualitative assessment. As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    Based on the lack of any endpoints of concern, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to PolyDADMAC residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for PolyDADMAC.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for PolyDADMAC (CAS No. 26062-79-3) when used as an inert ingredient as a dispersing aid in food contact surface sanitizing solutions at less than 0.6% by weight in the final product.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.940(a), add alphabetically the inert ingredient “2-propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-propenyl-, chloride, homopolymer (CAS No. 26062-79-3)” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

    (a) * * *

    Pesticide chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2-propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-propenyl-, chloride, homopolymer 26062-79-3 When ready for use, the end-use concentration is not to exceed 0.6%. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-26297 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 2, 5, 11, 107, 113, 114, 117, 125, 159, 162, 175, and 180 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0867] Shipping; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming Amendments AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule makes non-substantive technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing regulations throughout Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2015-0867, which is available at http://regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this final rule, call or email Mr. Paul Crissy, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1093, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History III. Basis and Purpose IV. Discussion of the Rule V. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register OMB Office of Management and Budget Pub. L. Public Law § Section symbol U.S.C. United States Code II. Regulatory History

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements, because these changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this rule consists only of corrections and editorial, organizational, and conforming amendments, and that these changes will have no substantive effect on the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this final rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Basis and Purpose

    On the 1st of October each year, the printed editions of Titles 46 and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are re-codified. This rule, which becomes effective October 16, 2015, makes technical and editorial corrections throughout Title 46. There are no technical or editorial corrections for Title 49 this year. This rule does not create or change any substantive requirements.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    Each year, the Coast Guard issues technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing regulations in Titles 46 and 49 of the CFR. These annual “technical amendments” provide the public with more accurate and current regulatory information, but do not change the impact on the public of any Coast Guard regulations. This rule makes no changes to Title 49.

    This rule makes changes in the following sections of Title 46 in the CFR:

    Section 2.75-25(c)(3): Change “in the Federal Register” to “on the Coast Guard's Maritime Information eXchange Web site at http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment” to reflect the accurate location where the Coast Guard publishes the approval and listing of recognized laboratories. The change updates an outdated location.

    Section 5.903(b): Change the mailing address to reflect the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis as the office for submitting applications.

    Section 11.329(e): Remove the table in § 11.329(e) that is titled “Table 1 to § 11.327(d).”).” The same Table 1 correctly appears in § 11.327(d), but it has been erroneously duplicated in § 11.329(e). Table 1 to § 11.329(e) remains unchanged.

    Sections 107.111, 114.400(b), 125.160, 159.005-13(a)(4), 175.400: Change the reference to the location where the Coast Guard publishes a listing of current and formerly approved equipment and materials. The change updates an outdated location.

    Section 113.25-9(a): Change the term “windless” to “windlass.” The change corrects a typographical error.

    Sections 117.68(a)(1), 117.68(b)(1), 117.68(c)(2)(ii), 117.68(c)(2)(iii), 117.70(b)(1), 117.70(d)(1), 117.71(c), 180.68(a)(1), 180.68(c)(2)(ii), 180.68(c)(2)(iii), 180.70(b)(1), 180.70(d)(1), 180.71(c), 180.75(a): Add a reference to the relevant approval standard for equipment carried on vessels subject to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as an option for compliance. The SOLAS standards have already routinely been approved by the Coast Guard as an “other standard specified by the Commandant.” The change will provide clarity for the regulated public, eliminating duplicative approval requests.

    Section 162.060-10(b)(1): Change “manufacturer” to “manufacturer or independent laboratory” to reflect the fact that the independent laboratory is typically the entity that submits requests for approval of alternatives as equivalent to the regulatory requirements.

    Section 162.060-42(a)(2): Change the reference from “requirements in paragraph (b) of this section” to “requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.” Section 162.060-42(a)(2) discusses the ability of an independent laboratory to reject a manufacturer's proposed ballast water management system if the system does not meet the requirements listed in another paragraph in that section. Paragraph (b) is an incorrect reference paragraph because it does not list requirements for the manufacturer's system; instead, it is a requirement for the independent laboratory. Paragraph (a)(1) is the correct reference paragraph because it lists the relevant requirements. The change corrects a typographical error.

    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 these statutes or E.O.s.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this rule involves non-substantive changes and internal agency practices and procedures, it will not impose any additional costs on the public. The benefit of the non-substantive changes is increased clarity of regulations.

    B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), rules exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not required to examine the impact of the rule on small entities. Nevertheless, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.

    There is no cost to this final rule, and we do not expect it will have an impact on small entities because the provisions of this rule are technical and non-substantive. It will have no substantive effect on the public and will impose no additional costs. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Paul Crissy by phone at 202-372-1093 or via email at [email protected] 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.

    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).

    D. Collection of Information

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

    E. Federalism

    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.

    F. 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 1 year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    G. Taking of Private Property

    This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).

    H. Civil Justice Reform

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

    I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This final rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This final 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.

    K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

    M. 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 concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2 and figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction. This final rule involves amendments to regulations that are editorial or procedural. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket for this final rule where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 2

    Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

    46 CFR Part 5

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Investigations, Seamen.

    46 CFR Part 11

    Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen.

    46 CFR Part 107

    Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

    46 CFR Part 113

    Communications equipment, Fire prevention, Vessels.

    46 CFR Part 114

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Parts 117 and 180

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

    46 CFR Part 125

    Administrative practice and procedure, Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials transportation, Marine safety, Seamen.

    46 CFR Part 159

    Business and industry, Laboratories, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 162

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 175

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR parts 2, 5, 11, 107, 113, 114, 117, 125, 159, 162, 175, and 180 to read as follows:

    PART 2—VESSEL INSPECTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 622, Pub. L. 111-281; 33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2110, 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(77), (90), (92)(a), (92)(b).

    § 2.75-25 [Amended]
    2. In § 2.75-25(c)(3), remove the text “in the Federal Register” and add, in its place, the text “on the Coast Guard's Maritime Information eXchange Web site at http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment”.
    PART 5—MARINE INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS—PERSONNEL ACTION 3. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 2103, 7101, 7301, 7701; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    4. Revise § 5.903(b) to read as follows:
    § 5.903 Application procedures.

    (b) The completed application and letter must be addressed to the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis, Commandant (CG-INV-1), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501, and must be delivered in person to the nearest Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.

    PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS 5. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, 8906, and 70105; E.O. 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 11.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    § 11.329 [Amended]
    6. In § 11.329(e), remove Table 1 to § 11.327(d).
    PART 107—INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION 7. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307; 46 U.S.C. 3316; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 107.05 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    § 107.111 [Amended]
    8. In § 107.111 in the definition of “Approval series” following the text “A listing of”, remove the text “approved equipment, including all of the approval series, is published periodically by the Coast Guard in Equipment Lists (COMDTINST M16714.3 series), available from the Superintendent of Documents.” and add, in its place, the text “current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment.”.
    PART 113—COMMUNICATION AND ALARM SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 9. The authority citation for part 113 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 113.25-9 [Amended]
    10. In § 113.25-9(a) following the words “passageways in cargo areas, steering gear rooms,” remove the word “windless” and add, in its place, the word “windlass”.
    PART 114—GENERAL PROVISIONS 11. The authority citation for part 114 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 114.900 also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    § 114.400 [Amended]
    12. In § 114.400(b), in the definition of “Approval series” following the text “A listing of”, remove the text “approved equipment, including all of the approval series, is published periodically by the Coast Guard in Equipment Lists (COMDTINST M16714.3 series), available from the Superintendent of Documents.” and add, in its place, the text “current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment.”.
    PART 117—LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS 13. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 117.68 [Amended]
    14. Amend § 117.68 as follows: a. In paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(2)(ii) following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.121”; and b. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.122”.
    § 117.70 [Amended]
    15. Amend § 117.70 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1) following the text “specified by the Commandant”, add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.150”; and b. In paragraph (d)(1) following the text “specified by the Commandant”, add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.110”.
    § 117.71 [Amended]
    16. In § 117.71(c), following the text “specified by the Commandant”, add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.155 or 160.176”.
    PART 125—GENERAL 17. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3307; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 125.160 [Amended]
    18. In § 125.160 in the definition of “Approval series” following the text “A listing of”, remove the text “approved equipment, including all of the approval series, is published periodically by the Coast Guard in Equipment Lists (COMDTINST M16714.3 series), available from the Superintendent of Documents.” and add, in its place, the text “current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment.”.
    PART 159—APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS 19. The authority citation for part 159 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46; Section 159.001-9 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    20. Revise § 159.005-13(a)(4) to read as follows:
    § 159.005-13 Equipment or material: Approval.

    (a) * * *

    (4) Publishes a record of the approval in the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (CGMIX). A listing of current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment.

    PART 162—ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT 21. The authority citation for part 162 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4104, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 162.060-10 [Amended]
    22. § 162.060—10(b)(1), after the text “practicable or applicable, a manufacturer”, add the text “or independent laboratory”.
    § 162.060-42 [Amended]
    23. In § 162.060-42(a)(2) following the text “requirements in paragraph”, remove the text “(b)” and add, in its place, the text “(a)(1)”.
    PART 175—GENERAL PROVISIONS 24. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3703; Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 175.900 also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    § 175.400 [Amended]
    25. In § 175.400 in the definition of “Approval series” following the text “A listing of”, remove the text “approved equipment, including all of the approval series, is published periodically by the Coast Guard in Equipment Lists (COMDTINST M16714.3 series), available from the Superintendent of Documents.” and add, in its place, the text “current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment.”.
    PART 180—LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS 26. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 2104, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 180.68 [Amended]
    27. Amend § 180.68 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.121”; b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), after the text “specified by the Commandant”, add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.121”; and c. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), after the text “or other standard specified by the Commandant”, add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.122”.
    § 180.70 [Amended]
    28. Amend § 180.70 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1), following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.150”; and b. In paragraph (d)(1), following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.110”.
    § 180.71 [Amended]
    29. In § 180.71(c), following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.155 or 160.176”.
    § 180.75 [Amended]
    30. In § 180.75(a), following the text “specified by the Commandant” add the text “, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.112”.
    Katia Kroutil, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26119 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04--P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 12 [PS Docket No. 14-174; FCC 15-98] Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopts rules to promote continued access to 911 during commercial power outages by requiring providers of facilities-based, fixed residential voice services, which are not line powered, to offer subscribers the option to purchase a backup solution capable of 8 hours of standby power, and within three years, an additional solution capable of 24 hours of standby power. The item also promotes consumer education and choice by requiring providers of covered services to disclose to subscribers the following information: availability of backup power sources; service limitations with and without backup power during a power outage; purchase and replacement options; expected backup power duration;) proper usage and storage conditions for the backup power source; subscriber backup power self-testing and monitoring instructions; and backup power warranty details, if any.

    DATES:

    Effective dates: This rule is effective October 16, 2015, except for § 12.5(b)(1), which is effective February 16, 2016; § 12.5(b)(2), which is effective February 13, 2019; and § 12.5(d), which is effective 120 days after date the Commission announces approval from the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will announce the effective date for § 12.5(d) with a document in the Federal Register.

    Compliance dates: Section 12.5(b)(1), for providers with fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines on August 11, 2016; and § 12.5(d), for providers with fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines 300 days after date the Commission announces approval from the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will announce the compliance date for § 12.5(d) with a document in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Linda M. Pintro, at (202) 418-7490 or [email protected] For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or send an email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O) in PS Docket No. 14-174, released on August 7, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/ensuring-continuity-911-communications-report-and-order.

    I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) takes important steps to ensure continued public confidence in the availability of 911 service by providers of facilities-based fixed, residential voice services in the event of power outages.

    2. For over one hundred years, consumers have trusted that they will hear a dial tone in an emergency even when the power is out. Now, as networks transition away from copper-based, line-powered technology, many are aware of the innovation this transition has spurred in emergency services, but many consumers, remain unaware that they must take action to ensure that dial tone's availability in the event of a commercial power outage. The Commission's own consumer complaints portal reveals frustration over the failure of service providers to adequately inform subscribers about how to self-provision backup power in order to access 911 services in a power outage. This period of transition has the potential to create a widespread public safety issue if unaddressed.

    3. Accordingly, we create new section 12.5 of our rules to place limited backup power obligations on providers of facilities-based fixed, residential voice services that are not line-powered to ensure that such service providers meet their obligation to provide access to 911 service during a power outage, and to provide clarity for the role of consumers and their communities should they elect not to purchase backup power. To be sure, many providers of residential voice communications already offer some level of backup power to consumers. However, the vital importance of the continuity of 911 communications, and the Commission's duty to promote “safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication,” favor action to ensure that all consumers understand the risks associated with non-line-powered 911 service, know how to protect themselves from such risks, and have a meaningful opportunity to do so. Specifically, we require all providers of facilities-based, fixed, voice residential service that is not line powered—including those fixed applications of wireless service offered as a “plain old telephone service” (POTS) replacement—to offer new subscribers the option to purchase a backup solution that provides consumers with at least 8 hours of standby power during a commercial power outage, which will enable calls to 911. In addition, we require these providers to offer, within three years of the effective date of the eight hour obligation, at least one option that provides a minimum of 24 hours of 911 service.

    4. Additionally, we require all providers of facilities-based, fixed, voice residential service that is not line-powered to notify subscribers, at the point of sale and annually thereafter until September 1, 2025, of the availability of backup power purchasing options, use conditions and effect on power source effectiveness, power source duration and service limitations, testing and monitoring, and replacement details. Additionally, we direct the PSHSB to work with CGB to develop, prior to the implementation date of these rules for smaller providers, as herein defined, non-binding guidance with respect to the required notifications to subscribers. We limit these obligations to ten years as that should be enough time to ensure that overall consumer expectations regarding residential voice communications are aligned with ongoing technology transitions.

    5. Finally, we encourage covered providers to conduct tailored outreach to state and local disaster preparedness entities to ensure that consumables and rechargeable elements associated with backup power technical solutions deployed in their area are well understood so that communities may prioritize restocking and/or recharging in response to extended power outages.

    II. Background

    6. Our Nation's communications infrastructure and the services available to consumers are undergoing technology transitions. The Commission has recognized that these transitions will bring enormous benefits to consumers, but also that they raise important questions about how to appropriately carry out our obligations set forth in the Communications Act, including promoting public safety and national security, and protecting consumers.

    7. To further these statutory objectives, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to ensure reliable backup power for consumers . . . Specifically, the Commission sought comment on the “communications services we should include within the scope of any backup power requirements we may adopt” and “propose[d] that any potential requirements would apply to facilities-based, fixed voice residential services, such as interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), that are not line-powered by the provider.” The Commission proposed that “providers should assume responsibility for provisioning backup power that is capable of powering network equipment at the subscriber premises during the first 8 hours of an outage” but sought comment on what should happen in the event of an extended commercial power outage. The Commission also recognized the importance of outreach to consumers on the effect of commercial power outages to their communications services and sought comment on effective consumer notification.

    III. Discussion

    8. Communications services play an essential role in the delivery of public safety services, particularly 911, and that role is especially prominent during emergencies that lead to power outages. In the NPRM in this proceeding, we sought comment on the means to ensure that consumers have access to minimally essential communications, including 911 calls and telephone-based alerts and warnings, during a loss of commercial power. In this Report & Order, we take steps toward that goal by establishing clear lines of responsibility for ensuring continued 911 service during such commercial power outages and by: (1) Establishing a phased-in obligation for the offering of backup power solutions to consumers; and (2) requiring covered providers to engage in disclosure of the risks associated with these outages and steps consumers may take to address those risks.

    9. As discussed in greater detail below, we require that providers of non-line-powered facilities-based, fixed, voice residential service, including fixed wireless service intended as POTS replacement, offer, at the subscriber's option and expense, a backup power solution that provides 911 access for 8 hours in the event of commercial power loss. Within three years, providers must also offer a 24-hour backup power solution. We also require covered providers to explain at point of sale how the subscriber may extend the provision of backup power during longer, multi-day outages through devices such as solar chargers, car chargers or mobile charging stations and to direct customers to sources of such equipment. No provider will be required to install backup power unless requested by, and at the expense of, the subscriber, and no subscriber will be forced to purchase unwanted equipment. Rather, our rules will ensure that subscribers who so elect can obtain backup power simply and conveniently when activating a covered service. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are adequately informed in determining whether to make this election, we adopt disclosure requirements designed to ensure that subscribers are aware of the backup power options available for their service, including installation and other usage instructions. We also encourage, but do not require, providers to conduct tailored outreach to state and local disaster preparedness entities to ensure that consumables associated with their backup power technical solutions are well understood so that communities may prioritize restocking and/or recharging in support of extended power outages.

    A. Need for Line Powering or an Alternative Source of Power During Outages

    10. In the NPRM, we noted that, in the past, consumers have relied upon service providers for backup power for their residential landline phones. That is, equipment on the subscriber premises of those still served by copper networks continued to work during commercial power outages as long as the handset or other subscriber premises equipment did not need to be plugged into an electrical outlet to function. We proposed and sought comment on steps we could take to safeguard continuity of communications throughout a power outage across networks that provide residential fixed voice service used to dial 911, including the possible adoption of new rules. Based on the record of this proceeding, we conclude that in order to ensure the availability of 911 service in the provision of facilities-based, fixed, voice residential services during power outages, we must adopt rules to require, among other things, either line powering or (at the subscriber's option and expense) an alternative means of maintaining 911 access during commercial power outages.

    11. During a power outage, many subscribers must rely on a battery back-up, or an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), to ensure that their service will continue to operate. That is, many subscribers cannot rely on the availability of continuous power that is sufficient to provide basic telephony indefinitely in their homes. Specifically, modern fiber and cable networks do not provide power to operate necessary equipment at the subscriber location, including network devices (e.g., cable modems, optical network terminals) and telephones. The deployment of a VoIP service requires that analog voice signals be converted to IP, using a voice codec. The most commonly deployed model for VoIP services in the United States places the Analog Telephone Adapter (ATA) in a network device that is installed inside of the living unit. This ATA function is commonly used in hybrid fiber coax cable networks that use embedded multimedia terminal adapters (eMTA), twisted pair telephone (DSL) networks and increasingly Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) Optical Network Units (ONUs), also called Optical Network Terminals (ONTs). Voice codecs support voice, fax, and other legacy TDM services over IP, and their function is sometimes referred to as the ATA. Network devices with the embedded ATA function are powered directly by AC power or through a UPS that converts AC to DC power. According to the CSRIC report, in other use cases, the ATA function is being placed in consumer owned devices, creating more challenges for battery backup of VoIP services.

    12. Given that consumers are increasingly relying on new types of service for residential voice communications, and that in many areas traditional line-powered 911 service is now, or is soon likely to be, no longer be available, the NPRM asked whether it was reasonable for providers to continue to bear primary responsibility for backup power, and if so, to what extent. We also stated that it was our intention to: (1) Establish clear expectations for both providers and subscribers as to their responsibilities throughout the course of an outage; and (2) minimize potential for lapses in service because of subscriber confusion or undue reliance on the provider with respect to backup power for equipment at the subscriber premises. The NPRM communicated a desire to adopt baseline requirements for ensuring continuity of power for devices at the subscriber location during commercial power outages. We acknowledged that backup power is not solely a copper retirement issue. Thus, we intended to address backup power at the subscriber premises also for those who have already migrated or been transitioned to an IP-based network.

    13. We adopt the rules that follow because we believe that it is essential for all consumers to be able to access 911 emergency services during commercial power outages, especially those outages caused by catastrophic storms or other unpredictable events, and to understand how to do so. Ensuring the ability to maintain such service is a vital part of our statutory mandate to preserve reliable 911 service, and more generally, our statutory goal to promote “safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.” We agree with the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) that it is unlikely that our concerns would be adequately addressed without the adoption of regulatory requirements. We are supported in our conclusion by commenters such as the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC), which urges the Commission to adopt baseline requirements for ensuring continuity of power during commercial power outages applicable to providers of interconnected VoIP-based services that do not provide line power at their central office, but rather rely on backup power.

    14. Specifically, we find that public safety officers, first responders and other public officials have a need to communicate with citizens through whatever means possible, and 911 service plays an important role in this regard. Indeed, consumer advocates and 911 providers emphasize the need to adopt robust backup power requirements to ensure public safety. For example, Public Knowledge notes that right now consumers of traditional landline service are “guaranteed backup power during power outages” and “many consumers keep their landline service specifically to retain this feature.” Public Knowledge further states that, “[w]ith the advent of cordless phones the only time the consumer worried about backup batteries was for their cordless phone or they simply retained a traditional phone to use during emergencies.”

    15. NASUCA and many other commenters agree that Commission action will help preserve consumers' ability to access 911 service. Specifically, NASUCA “fully supports the Commission's determination to ensure reliable backup power for consumers of IP-based voice and data services across networks that provide residential, fixed service that substitutes for and improves upon the kind of traditional telephony used by people to dial 911.” According to NASUCA, “[b]ackup power requirements will help ensure that service will continue in a power outage.” The National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) similarly observes that “[t]he transition from legacy copper loops to other network technologies means that an important safety net—Central Office provisioning of line power to the subscriber premises—will disappear unless the Commission takes action to mitigate it.” The Communications Workers of America (CWA) asserts that CWA, consumer organizations, state regulatory commissions, and public safety associations “support Commission proposals to facilitate the transition to high-speed broadband networks, protect consumers and promote public safety by upgrading Commission rules regarding back-up power, network changes, and service discontinuance.”

    16. We agree that this period of transition gives rise to the need for “upgrading Commission rules.” We observe that the consumers most at risk of losing continuity of 911 communications during commercial power outages are those in the midst of transitioning from legacy copper, or that are new to non-copper media, because they may currently assume they will be able to reach 911 during a power outage. For example, Public Knowledge asserts that “the new technologies with which AT&T and Verizon propose to replace traditional POTS are not self-powered, do not work with vital devices on which consumers rely, and are not available in every community.” Public Knowledge further argues that, “[w]hile technology transitions hold tremendous promise for a state-of-the-art communications network, the loss of guaranteed backup power or shifting backup power responsibility to the consumer are serious changes that could end up creating a network that serves some and not others.”

    17. We agree with the commenters who assert that transitions to new technology should not result in 911 service being more vulnerable than when consumers used the legacy network. As we stated in the NPRM, the absence of line powering for some voice services (such as those provided by cable companies) was not an issue that needed to be addressed when legacy line-powered network options were widely available, but it must be addressed as more and more residential subscribers are faced with only VoIP and other residential IP-based services (or legacy services delivered over fiber) as options, because these services typically will require a backup power source to function during power outages. Accordingly, we focus our requirements to support the continued transmission of 911 communications for service that will no longer have line powering capabilities. Because of the importance of the continuity of 911 communications, we also include under the new requirement providers that may have never provided line powering, but that provide services intended to replace traditional POTS services on which consumers have relied for continuous access. With the accelerating transition to new technologies, consumers of these services will no longer have competitive alternatives that come with line-powering capabilities.

    18. We reiterate our observation in the NPRM that adequate and reliable access to 911 services and functionalities during emergency conditions is a long-standing public policy objective. Although we recognize that we are in the midst of sweeping change, we believe that voice communications continue to play an essential and central role in the delivery of public safety services, and that this role does not diminish during events that cause power outages. Indeed, it is at these times that consumers most need to know that they will be able to use their home telephone to get help through 911.

    19. We recognize that, as noted by some commenters, many users of interconnected VoIP service may well be unconcerned about backup power, choosing instead to rely on their mobile phones or alternative backup sources. Nonetheless, because of the critical nature of 911 communications, we are not persuaded by the argument that there is no need for action to ensure the continuity of 911 communications to homes across the country. Nor are we convinced that we should abandon this effort because of claims that consumer expectations, which have developed over decades, are already reset such that they no longer expect their home phone to work during power outages. Consumers who have yet to abandon (or who have only recently abandoned) line-powered service may not have had their expectations “reset.” At this time of transition, it is these consumers who are more likely to mistakenly believe that they can access emergency services during a power outage when the line power option had already been eliminated.

    20. We find merit in NASUCA's argument that the public interest requires the industry to be responsible for ensuring that its subscribers at least have some option to purchase backup power, either from the service provider or a third party. Therefore, as more fully discussed below, we conclude that the public interest would be best served by ensuring the option for continued access to backup power to maintain continuity of 911 communications during a loss of commercial power.

    21. We have previously recognized that the benefits associated with reliable 911 service are substantial. The provision of backup power for network equipment at the subscriber premises promotes the “safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication,” by enabling 911 calls for subscribers of the covered services, when the power is out. Specifically, the rules we adopt today will preserve safety of life by enabling the use of VoIP and other non-line powered services to contact 911 in a commercial power outage, which is what millions of Americans have come to expect from their “home phone.” We expect that providing the option for at least 8 hours of backup power would ensure the ability to make many life-saving 911 calls during commercial power outages. Therefore, we find, as we have before, that “[r]eliable 911 service provides public safety benefits that, while sometimes difficult to quantify, are enormously valuable to individual callers and to the nation as a whole.”

    22. We have also previously found that greater access to 911 enables other public safety-related benefits as well. The Commission's “Text-to-911” proceeding concluded that increasing access to 911 “could yield other benefits, such as reduced property losses and increased probability of apprehending criminal suspects. Also, the increased ability to place 911 calls necessarily means that there is an increased ability to receive calls in an emergency, including calls from public entities attempting to disseminate important information during widespread emergencies (such as evacuation notices). Many communities have installed such a function that “has proven to be effective in other counties and cities, such as San Diego during the fires of 2007.”

    B. Covered Services

    23. In the NPRM, we sought comment to help identify the most essential communications services that a customer would need to get emergency help during a power outage. We referred to this in the NPRM as “minimally essential” communications. We intended to afford sufficient power for minimally essential communications, including and especially 911 calls and the receipt of emergency alerts and warnings.

    24. We also noted that voice services historically have been the primary means of contacting 911 for emergency help. Moreover, we observed that line-powered service can operate continuously and indefinitely during a commercial power failure, and does not require a backup power source to maintain continuity of communications for access to 911. Thus, we proposed that any rules apply “to facilities-based, fixed voice services, such as interconnected VoIP, that are not line-powered by the provider.”

    25. Consistent with this proposal, we conclude that it would be in the best interest of the public to apply our rules to facilities-based, fixed voice services, such as interconnected VoIP, that are not line-powered by the provider. Our conclusion is based on the fact that, as we stated in the NPRM, voice service is still the primary means of reaching help through 911. We clarify that a wireless voice service is “fixed” for purposes of our rules if it is marketed as a replacement for line-powered telephone service and is intended primarily for use at a fixed location. We further clarify that whether a wireless service is “fixed” does not depend on the regulatory classification of the service under Federal or state law, or on the mobile capabilities of the service. Similarly, the use of a femtocell or similar equipment in a residential setting does not automatically convert a mobile service into a fixed service. The decisive factor is whether the service is intended to function as or substitute for a “fixed” voice service.

    26. Although the rule we adopt today would allow for calls other than to or from 911, we find there is not currently a means to prioritize the provision of power for only some voice calls (such as 911 calls) over other communications (such as calls to friends and family). Many commenters generally agree that there is no practical way to maintain power for only some calls. For example, according to Verizon, calibrating a provider's battery backup obligations and capabilities based upon essential versus non-essential calls would be inconsistent with consumer's expectations, and unnecessarily complex. ITTA, the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC), NASUCA, and others argue that it would be technically difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish among certain types of calls or functions in a way that would allow rapid load-shedding of non-essential communications to conserve backup power, if minimally essential communications were defined as only 911 or emergency communications.

    27. Some commenters argue for an even broader definition of covered services, citing various examples. Although we recognize that limiting the definition as we have done omits some services on which consumers currently rely in emergencies, we expect that both the consumer backup power needs and our rules will evolve. More importantly, we do not more broadly define covered services because we find that at this time it would be in the best interests of the public to limit application of our rules to discharge our statutory duty to ensure the continued viability of 911. Imposing specific obligations on providers to support other communications could introduce confusion and impose costs on providers that may well exceed the incremental benefits. This is particularly true given the many backup power solutions on the market today that are capable of supporting both essential and non-essential communications.

    28. We reject the argument of NCTA and others that adopting backup power rules exclusively for fixed services unduly favors competing mobile services. The rules we adopt herein are intended to clarify the obligations of providers and the expectations of consumers in the provision of services that a customer would perceive as replacing line-powered telephone service. Mobile wireless services increasingly compete with fixed services, but they function differently in multiple respects. Perhaps most significantly, mobile wireless devices are battery-powered in their normal mode of operation. Thus, we do not believe that consumers would reasonably expect such devices to draw line power during a commercial power failure. Moreover, the battery that powers a mobile device provides an inherent source of “backup power” that is often capable of providing far more than 8 hours of service per charge, and often may be charged through additional means, such as a car charger.

    29. Therefore, we conclude that, at this time, the appropriate services that should be subject to backup power requirements for effective 911 service during power outages are facilities-based, fixed voice service that is not line-powered by the providers, and is offered as a residential service.

    C. Responsibilities of Providers of Covered Services

    30. To promote clear expectations and customer choice, we adopt a combination of performance and disclosure requirements to empower consumers to understand the backup power options available to maintain continuity of 911 service and to obtain the equipment necessary to provide such service, if they wish, at the point of sale. Providers of covered services must offer at least one technical solution capable of supporting at least 8 hours of uninterrupted 911 service and install such equipment, at the subscriber's option and expense, as part its installation of service. Within three years, providers of covered services also must offer new subscribers at the point of sale and install, at the subscriber's option and expense, a 24-hour backup power solution if a subscriber desires additional protection. We also adopt a disclosure requirement designed to ensure that both current and new subscribers understand their options with respect to backup power and are aware of the consequences of their decisions whether, and to what extent, to purchase backup power. Finally, we encourage providers of covered services to engage in targeted outreach to the communities they serve to ensure that local emergency managers are aware of the limitations inherent in various fixed, residential voice service technologies commonly used in their areas, as well as backup power options for individuals and communities more broadly to maintain continuity of communications in an emergency.

    1. Performance Requirements a. Duration

    31. We adopt backup power requirements that offer consumers meaningful alternatives to address their individualized needs, recognizing that consumers may have different preferences for backup power. Comments in response to the NPRM confirm that “a one-size fits all solution is inappropriate and would disserve customer interests.” Accordingly, we adopt a phased-in approach that will provide consumers with multiple options. As an initial baseline, we will require providers of covered services to offer, at the point of sale, to install a technical solution capable of supporting at least 8 hours of uninterrupted 911 service during a power outage. Within three years, providers must also offer, at the point of sale, a technical solution capable of supporting 24 hours of uninterrupted 911 service if the subscriber desires additional backup power. To minimize costs and provide flexibility, we do not specify the means by which providers of covered services offer to supply these amounts of backup power; instead, providers are free to develop individual technical solutions. To plan for longer power outages, we strongly encourage providers to inform subscribers of options to extend such uninterrupted service over multiple days and direct subscribers to sources of known compatible accessories such as home, car, or solar chargers. For longer power outages, we do not require providers to offer or install any particular solution, but we strongly encourage providers to inform subscribers at the point of sale, and through annual disclosures to existing and new subscribers discussed below, about known options to ensure uninterrupted 911 service and provide examples of retail sources for associated equipment, which may include third-party vendor sources if providers do not offer such equipment themselves.

    32. In the NPRM, we observed that 8 hours of backup power for network equipment at the subscriber premises appears to be consistent with a number of VoIP deployment models already in practice, though some providers have deployed backup power capabilities for up to 24 hours. We find that 8 hours of backup power is the appropriate amount of time to afford consumers with continuity of power in the critical hours immediately after a power outage, and is a backup power duration that is technically feasible today. The record reflects that the option to receive 8 hours of backup power is already an industry norm, as well as a reasonable baseline for the amount of standby time that is likely to be useful to consumers during emergencies. The United States Telecom Association (US Telecom), for example, states that “provisioning eight hours of backup power is consistent with industry standards and reflects what VoIP providers currently employ.” Verizon offers subscribers a 12-volt battery that provides up to 8 hours of backup for voice services and also observes that “[c]ompanies such as Comcast, Cablevision, and Cox offer a battery with eight hours of backup, and Time Warner offers a battery with a choice of eight or twelve hours.” The Electronic Security Association (ESA) and the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) urge the Commission to promote adherence to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) minimum standard on battery backup, which also is 8 hours. In light of this broad consensus, and based on the fact that 8 hours of backup power is already being provisioned today by some providers, we disagree with commenters who suggest that 8 hours is not an appropriate standard for backup power offerings. We find that it is technically feasible for providers of covered services to offer subscribers the option of at least 8 hours of backup power through provider-supplied backup power equipment or by offering compatible third-party equipment. While many providers already offer their subscribers an 8-hour backup power capability, the rule we adopt today establishes a common baseline that will ensure that consumers have access to backup power options regardless of their provider. This will promote public safety and emergency preparedness by allowing subscribers to reach 911 and receive telephone-based alerts and warnings in the critical hours immediately following a commercial power failure. We emphasize that the requirements we adopt today do not place any obligation on the consumer to purchase backup power; the obligation is placed on the provider not providing line-powered service, to make backup power available to the consumer, and to install appropriate backup power upon initial installation of service if requested by the consumer. To that end, we expect that installers should be able to answer questions about backup power.

    33. While we believe that 8 hours of backup power would address the need for continuity of communications immediately after a power outage, we recognize that, in some cases, 8 hours of backup power may not be enough for subscribers to reach critical emergency services during an extended loss of power. AARP urges the Commission to require providers to be “responsible for the deployment and maintenance of voice-enabling CPE that delivers at least 12 hours of standby time.” NASUCA and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) also suggest that a longer time period, such as 12 or 24 hours, would be more useful for subscribers who need a longer duration to attend to other time sensitive matters that arise during the course of a natural disaster or other emergency. While industry commenters oppose a mandate to provide more than 8 hours of backup power to every subscriber, service providers note existing solutions, as well as innovative new solutions, that are capable of supporting longer standby times. Along similar lines, NASUCA urges the Commission to monitor advances in battery technology, and as soon as such technology is available at a reasonable cost, to require providers to furnish backup batteries with 7-day standby time and 24-hour talk time.

    34. In light of the critical need for maintaining 911 service during more severe and long-lasting power failures, we will require providers to offer subscribers a 24-hour backup power solution within three years. The record indicates that the provision of 24 hours of backup power is at least technically feasible today. ACA has “determined that batteries with 24 hour stand by capability can be ordered from at least one vendor but are not immediately available because they are not widely used.” As explained below, we do not require providers to offer technologically distinct 8-hour and 24-hour solutions, so a 24-hour solution could consist simply of three 8-hour batteries. Many providers that offer an 8-hour solution are therefore likely to be capable of offering a 24-hour solution with minimal additional difficulty. That said, we want to encourage continued innovation in the development of 24-hour and longer term backup power solutions and avoid locking in solutions that are minimally compliant but that may not provide the best value to consumers. We will therefore phase-in the 24-hour requirement over three years, during which time we expect providers to work diligently to implement innovative solutions for providing at least 24 hours of backup power that improve upon current offerings in terms of cost, reliability and ease of use. This is consistent with ACA's recommendation for a phase-in of the 24-hour battery requirement for smaller providers; however, we find that given the overall market conditions for 24-hour battery supplies, including questions about immediate availability, it is appropriate to phase in the requirements for all providers, regardless of size. While NASUCA recommends that the Commission monitor battery backup power developments and phase in the requirements as soon as the market will allow, we find that providing a date certain both allows the market sufficient time to develop, and places a backstop for development, thereby spurring innovation in a reasonable timeframe. In the meantime, we encourage but do not require providers to offer a 24-hour solution using available technologies.

    35. As commenters note, the need for continued access to 911 during an extended power outage does not end after 8, or even 24, hours. For example, Public Knowledge argues that “a minimum time of seven days backup power is a reasonable requirement that will keep consumers safe before, during, and after a natural disaster, and allow them to rebuild their communities.” Based on a study by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Public Knowledge observes that restoring power after Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina took 12 and 15 days respectively, and on average takes 7 to 23 days. To address such extended losses of commercial power Public Knowledge asserts that “carriers must prioritize the adoption of devices that use batteries that can last days and are not proprietary.” Other commenters argue that “Americans have come to trust and expect basic telephone service to work indefinitely, particularly during power outages caused by natural disasters and public safety emergencies” and urge us to adopt even longer backup power requirements, ranging from seven days to two weeks.

    36. We are not persuaded that a requirement for providers of covered services to offer or install more than 24 hours of backup power is necessary at this time. All things equal, we would prefer access to 911 during a loss of commercial power to last indefinitely, as consumers have come to expect with line-powered services. We recognize, however, that there are technical, operational, and cost considerations that must be balanced against this theoretical desire. For reasons discussed above, we believe that it is both technically feasible and consistent with current business models for covered services to require providers to offer options for 8 and 24 hours of backup power on the timelines specified in our rules. We agree, however, with commenters who suggest that a mandate to offer backup power for multi-day outages could impose unnecessary burdens on service providers and excessive costs on consumers for comparatively little public safety benefit. As CSRIC has observed, backup power technologies are evolving, and the cost of more advanced batteries such as lithium-ion cells is likely to decrease over time as other options such as power-over-Ethernet become more widespread. We will continue to monitor these developments to ensure that our rules keep pace. Moreover, power outages of extended duration allow well-informed consumers time to recharge their existing batteries or make other arrangements to reach emergency assistance until power is restored. We therefore strongly encourage providers to inform subscribers, both at the point of sale and annually thereafter, of known ways consumers can maintain connectivity during extended power outages. As an example, this could include guidance on restocking or recharging a power supply used to provide 8- or 24-hour capability. Providers could also give information on purchasing other accessories such as solar, home or car chargers that may allow exhausted batteries to be recharged and that are compatible with the provider's equipment. Providers need not offer such accessories themselves or endorse particular third-party suppliers, but they should provide sufficient information, including technical specifications when necessary, for subscribers to obtain compatible accessories from commercial sources. Such information may be provided through welcome kits, brochures, emails to subscribers, or any other means reasonably calculated to reach each subscriber, as discussed below, while providing due consideration for any preference expressed by the customer. Providers sometimes deploy mobile charging stations to areas affected by an extended outage, and may inform subscribers when such mobile charging stations are made available.

    37. In adopting these requirements, we acknowledge observations that “[n]otwithstanding the availability of backup batteries, many customers today choose not to obtain a battery, given the growing reliance on wireless or the customers' use of handsets or other devices that themselves require commercial power to operate.” We also agree with commenters such as Verizon that “[c]ustomers should be free to decline [a backup] battery, depending on their personal preference.” We further acknowledge that comments in the record indicate that, when it is offered, consumers often may not choose to avail themselves of options to purchase backup power. Commenters note, for example, that many subscribers of fixed, residential VoIP service also purchase mobile voice service that provides an alternate means of reaching 911 in an emergency, and that others prefer cordless phones that require backup power beyond that supplied by service provider networks. Nevertheless, some consumers—particularly the elderly and other populations that are at the greatest risk during an emergency—may not subscribe to mobile wireless service and may rely solely on the continued functionality of their residential voice service to reach 911. Furthermore, mobile networks are not designed in the same manner as wireline networks and may become overloaded in times of extreme use in an emergency situation, and thus be unavailable for use to reach 911. We emphasize that nothing in our rules forces consumers to purchase backup power they do not want. We require only that consumers who want service that will work during power outages and have not otherwise provided for such uninterrupted service have the option of obtaining that capability, and that they have sufficient information to make an informed decision.

    38. In the NPRM, we discussed the duration of backup power in terms of “the availability of standby backup power, not actual talk time.” Commenters differ on whether backup power should be measured in terms of standby time, talk time, or some other metric that takes into account variations in battery life under different conditions. NASUCA, for example, questions provider assertions about backup battery life on the grounds that 8 hours of battery life yields far less actual talk time, and because batteries deteriorate as they age. Public Knowledge observes that the actual duration of a battery depends on its use, and that the more calls are placed, the more quickly backup power is depleted. In light of these potential discrepancies, we believe that adopting a uniform definition of “backup power” is necessary to avoid potential consumer confusion. Therefore, we base our backup power requirements on the amount of time a technical solution can maintain a covered service in standby mode, i.e., able to provide a dial tone and to initiate and receive voice calls, but not necessarily in continuous use. We believe that standby time is an appropriate metric, because our rules are premised on the need for covered services to be available to dial 911 or receive incoming communications such as emergency alerts and warnings during emergencies, not necessarily on the need for extended talk time when commercial power fails. We recognize that actual battery life may vary depending on how often subscribers place calls and how long such calls last, but we conclude it would not be practical to account for such situation-specific variations in our rules and that standby time is a more consistent and useful point of comparison. Accordingly, we require providers of covered services to offer subscribers the option to obtain backup power for 8 hours (effective 120 days after publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register) or 24 hours (effective within three years thereafter) of standby time, measured at rated specifications, without a duration requirement for actual talk time.

    b. Methods of Provisioning Backup Power

    39. We agree with commenters who advocate flexibility in how providers achieve continuity of 911 access for the time periods discussed above. The record reflects that providers currently employ a variety of backup power technologies and that a range of backup power options are also available direct-to-consumer from third-party sources. CSRIC, for example, identifies nine “use cases” for residential VoIP deployment, with a range of equipment functioning as an analog telephone adaptor (ATA) with varying levels of battery backup. CSRIC observes that “[t]he most commonly deployed model for VoIP services in the United States is to locate the ATA function in a network device, installed inside the living unit.” In addition, as NCTA states, uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) that can power multiple devices during a power outage are already widely available at national retailers. Bright House also describes “numerous retail options available to subscribers like UPS, portable power packs, solar, and manual cranks that power multiple devices during an outage and offer a more compelling and flexible solution to subscribers at comparable prices” Some parties also comment that subscribers who use more versatile power options such as UPS should not have to also pay for the duplicative cost of an additional limited-function battery; nor should the Commission require consumers to pay for a backup power option that does not work in their situation.

    40. We do not require use of a specific technical solution or combination of solutions. Providers, which are not providing line-powered service, have flexibility to develop and offer their own backup power solutions, as long as those solutions comply with the rules we adopt today. In addition, we expect that installers should be able to answer questions about backup power. For example, a provider could offer a solution with a single, internal battery delivering 8 hours of backup power. With respect to the 24-hour option required within three years, providers may choose to offer consumers a single 24-hour battery (or battery tray as offered by Verizon), three 8-hour batteries, or some other combination of installed and spare batteries, UPS systems or other technologies to provide 24 hours total. If the solution requires a proprietary battery or other equipment that is not widely available in retail stores, the equipment should be provided as part of the installation of service. If, however, the solution accepts commonly available equipment such as D-Cell batteries, providers need not supply such equipment themselves, as long as they notify subscribers at the point of sale that it is not included and must be supplied by the subscriber for the solution to function properly. In cases involving spare batteries that are not widely available at retail stores, the solution offered to subscribers should also include a charger or some other method of ensuring that such batteries are stored in a charged state.

    c. Battery Monitoring and Maintenance

    41. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether the provider should have any responsibility to monitor backup power status to determine whether the battery had degraded run time or performance. Generally, the comments of individual consumers and consumer advocacy organizations support requiring providers either to maintain and monitor the backup power or to provide subscribers with the means to do such monitoring. For example, AARP urges the Commission to adopt as a rule the CSRIC recommendation that service providers work with their vendors to provide a mechanism to monitor battery status, and determine whether the battery is degraded. AARP states that this can be done through remote monitoring of batteries as part of the service offered to subscribers, or through LEDs visible to subscribers. Other commenters suggest that the backup power system contain a self-monitoring feature that notifies subscribers audibly and visually when the backup power system is in use, and when it is running low. ESA notes, however, that some subscribers may not pay attention to these warnings, and that it may require personal interaction with subscribers to assist with upgrading or changing a battery that needs attention. On the other hand, service providers generally argue that requiring remote monitoring of backup power is either impractical with current technology or, even if technically feasible, of limited use to subscribers or providers. AT&T contends that “IP-based voice service providers generally do not assume responsibility for monitoring their customers' backup batteries,” and that “[r]elying on customers, rather than service providers, to monitor and maintain battery backup power for network equipment at the subscriber premises makes eminent sense given technological and marketplace changes.”

    42. We do not believe it would serve the public interest to require providers of covered services to remotely monitor backup power status at this time. Similarly, we decline to adopt any requirement that providers inspect or test backup power equipment after fulfilling their initial responsibility under our rules to offer subscribers the option, at the point of sale, for backup power to be installed as part of the initiation of service. This is consistent with CSRIC's observations that “[i]ncreasingly, battery backup is being offered as an optional accessory to the consumer, which they can control and manage themselves.” While we believe service providers are in the best position to identify and make available backup power solutions compatible with and appropriately sized for specific covered services, we agree with commenters who believe subscribers are in the best position to monitor backup power once installed, and in light of the disclosure requirements we are implementing designed to ensure they are adequately informed on how to do so. With respect to batteries, we are not persuaded that battery monitoring technology has evolved to the point of allowing service providers to conduct useful remote monitoring of battery status without raising costs to consumers or diverting resources away from more important network reliability issues through an increase in false failure alarms. We observe, however, that our allocation of monitoring responsibility to consumers is based on the expectation that service providers offer adequate information for subscribers to understand when their equipment is functioning properly and when it may require maintenance or replacement. Service providers should also inform subscribers of the potential for batteries to degrade over time and either make replacement batteries available for self-installation at the subscriber's expense or provide sufficient information for subscribers to obtain replacement batteries from third parties.

    d. No Obligation to Retrofit

    43. Some service providers express concerns about the cost and complexity of any obligation to retrofit currently installed equipment to comply with any backup power requirements the Commission adopts. AT&T, for example, states that “[i]f service providers were required to provide CPE backup power, the Commission should require only prospective implementation in order to avoid the technological pitfalls of retrofitting prior deployments.” ITTA argues that “[r]etrofitting existing service deployments for customers who are not interested in battery backup power would divert resources from new deployments, thus slowing the expansion of services to customers who desire advanced broadband capabilities.” We agree and decline to adopt any obligation that providers of covered services retrofit currently-deployed equipment to accommodate the amount of backup power specified in our rules for new installations. The record reflects that some covered services are currently deployed without backup power and that consumers may prefer to continue using their existing equipment. Accordingly, we require only that backup power options be offered at the point of sale. Providers may continue offering retrofit options for backup power upgrades to existing customers or those who decline the option at the point of sale, but they are under no obligation to do so. We note, however, that even service providers that do not currently offer backup power acknowledge that third-party UPS units may allow subscribers to maintain communications capabilities without the need to retrofit existing equipment. Therefore, we conclude that providers' obligations to current subscribers should include the disclosure requirements discussed below and the option for subscribers to self-install commercially available backup power solutions that are compatible with existing equipment.

    e. Compensation and Costs for Providing Backup Power

    44. In the NPRM, we proposed that any requirement for service providers to ensure a substitute for line power would be premised on the condition that such providers “would be entitled to commercially reasonable compensation in exchange for providing this service.” In response, Public Knowledge asserts that the Commission should use legacy POTS as a baseline and require providers to furnish backup power without an additional fee because, until the transition to IP-based services, reliability has always been paid for as part of a subscriber's phone bill, and allowing providers to charge for backup power for the same service via new technology would be a step backward. However, this argument disregards the record evidence that batteries or other potential substitutes for line powering carry a not insignificant additional cost over an entire network, and that it is not unreasonable to permit providers to recoup those additional costs from those subscribers who have need for the additional coverage. We also note that it is current practice among many interconnected VoIP providers to charge an extra fee for batteries or other backup power capabilities, suggesting that the expectations Public Knowledge cites may be changing as consumers increasingly adopt VoIP services. As CSRIC has observed, “[o]ne clear trend across all VoIP use cases is that battery backup is increasingly being offered as an option to the consumer, with the cost and maintenance of the UPS and batteries being the consumer's responsibility.” Ultimately, we are persuaded that subscribers should not have to pay for backup power they do not want. As discussed above, consumers may desire different amounts of backup power—or none at all—depending on their individual circumstances.

    45. Accordingly, we conclude that providers of covered services may charge subscribers for the backup power capabilities provided under our rules, if subscribers wish to purchase such capabilities. We emphasize that we do not specify the rates at which providers of covered services may offer backup power or related accessories, we expect market forces to ensure that backup power is offered at competitive prices. A service provider can receive compensation for all aspects of implementing the rules we adopt today, including the backup power installation, and costs of equipment and labor, from the consumer that elects to have backup power installed. And we do not preclude service providers from including backup power capabilities without separate charge, if they choose to do so for competitive or other reasons.

    46. By requiring only that service providers provision backup power upon subscriber request at point of sale, and at the requesting subscriber's expense, we have effectively negated the argument that these rules will substantially increase costs to providers. The majority of commenters who raise issues related to costs base their arguments on the assumption that the Commission would mandate a universal backup power solution across all subscribers, including retrofitting existing subscribers. The action we take today will substantially limit the providers' costs by requiring backup power installations only for customers that request backup power at the point of sale, and at those customers' expense. Fiber to the Home Council Americas states that “while the industry has generally supplied backup batteries to all subscribers, it would make a material difference to the cost of a build, enabling expansion into less dense areas, if it could supply battery backup only to those subscribers that expressly want it—a number all-fiber service providers has determined is not great.” Similarly, NCTA stated that in their experience only a small number of customers have purchased backup power. We also find concerns about the environmental effects of requiring all consumers to obtain backup power are inapplicable because we do not make such a requirement.

    47. There are additional factors that minimize the costs associated with compliance for the covered providers. First, as noted previously, the record indicates that numerous entities comprising a significant share of the IP voice services market are already offering their customers 8 hours of backup power; for those entities no additional costs are necessary. To the extent that a service provider is not currently offering the requisite 8 hours of backup power, the fact that numerous providers are currently offering such a solution indicates that solutions exist and are widely available. Accordingly, there is little need to custom-design a solution when many of the solutions can be used universally. Indeed, providers may avoid the costs of supplying or installing a proprietary solution. This also saves providers the costs of supplying batteries directly. The same cost-mitigating principles apply to the discussion of 24-hour and extended duration backup power; the commercial market for this solution already exists and even the smaller providers are confident in their ability to provide this level of backup power if provided ample transition. The record also indicates that many providers already offer some form of backup power, even if it is not an 8-hour solution, and therefore would be familiar with the practice of installing backup power solutions for their customers. Because the cost to providers of complying with this rule should be minimal both at the outset as well as when the 24-hour requirement takes effect, and the particular benefit to the public of enhanced continuity of communications to reach help through 911 during power outages is substantial, we conclude that our action today produces a net public benefit.

    2. Subscriber Disclosure Obligations a. Need for Subscriber Disclosure Obligations

    48. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should require providers to develop and implement consumer education plans regarding the availability of backup power, and noted our belief that such plans “would be critical to consumers' ability to successfully self-provision.”

    49. Commenters representing government stakeholders and consumers support such a requirement. For example, PA PUC states that, if providers require their customers to be responsible for purchasing or replacing backup power batteries, providers “must develop and implement outreach and education programs to ensure customers are aware that [customers] are responsible for providing their own backup power.” The New York Public Service Commission indicates that it is “critical that information about the consumer's role in maintaining continuity of power is transmitted to the customer by the service provider,” and that providers need to develop programs to “ensure consumers are aware that [they] are responsible for providing their own backup power.” The Attorneys General for the Peoples of the States of Illinois and New York state that, because of the reluctance to advertise a diminished service, “carriers may not emphasize the need for backup power disclosures.” The FCC's Intergovernmental Advisory Committee asserts that “providers should be required to communicate effectively and accurately the services that may no longer be available and options for consumers to obtain comparable services, including options with respect to backup power supplies.”

    50. Industry stakeholders, on the other hand, oppose such a requirement. The Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) states that there is “no evidence that additional consumer education would be helpful or necessary, and argues that a requirement is “unwarranted and a waste of resources.” AT&T recommends that the Commission refrain from imposing a consumer education requirement, and instead work with providers to review backup power best practices for consumer education. Others, such as CenturyLink, Hawaiian Telcom, NCTA, and Verizon, suggest that the Commission support the implementation of CSRIC recommendations regarding consumer notification. They argue that this would give providers the flexibility to implement consumer education measures as their networks and business models warrant.

    51. Others argue that a requirement is unnecessary because providers already give consumers information related to backup power. For example, NCTA argues that the Commission's existing rules already “ensure that consumers are made aware of the backup power ramifications of choosing a VoIP service,” and require providers at the initiation of interconnected VoIP service to “inform consumers of the `circumstances under which E911 service may not be available,' . . . includ[ing] `loss of electrical power.' ” ITTA notes that it is “standard industry practice for interconnected VoIP providers to notify consumers regarding the potential limitations of IP-enabled voice services and equipment during a power outage.” Fiber to the Home Council Americas (FTTH Council) also asserts that industry efforts to notify consumers about battery backup availability are effective based on assumptions regarding consumer adoption of wireless and VoIP services.

    52. AT&T states that providers of IP-based voice service already educate consumers on the necessity of a backup battery during a power outage and provide information about the backup battery, including practices for prolonging battery life, where to purchase battery replacement, and replacement instructions. CenturyLink indicates that it plans to provide information regarding “sample batteries that would work with [CenturyLink] equipment as well as suppliers of such equipment for those customers wishing to provide their own backup power.” Charter and Cablevision state that they are making “significant efforts to educate their customers about the VoIP services they offer, including that such service will not work during a power outage without a backup battery.”

    53. We find that the lack of uniformity in providers' backup power information, and as commenters present, lack of consumer awareness at a time of technological transition, may lead to consumer confusion about consumer expectations and responsibilities in the access of 911 service during power outages. While some providers already offer or plan to make available information to consumers in the near future, it appears from comments submitted and providers' Web sites that the information provided to consumers is not consistent across the industry. This lack of uniformity may lead to consumer confusion at a time of technological transition from services provided over copper networks to services provided over IP-based networks, and agree with commenters that there are consumers who “may not be aware that VoIP and wireless service operate differently from traditional landline telephony in a commercial power outage.” We acknowledge the concerns of commenters representing unique populations, such as AARP, which states that “[g]iven the diversity of service provider practices . . . the level of consumer understanding of CPE battery backup issues is certainly not uniform.” Further, subscriber complaints reveal that current disclosure practices are likely insufficient. For example, the Commission's consumer complaints portal reveals that some subscribers are frustrated by VoIP service providers' failure to inform subscribers about the need to self-provision a battery to operate backup power in order to access 911 services. Based on the record, while we acknowledge that there are some disclosures already mandated and some additional information provided voluntarily, we are not convinced disclosures currently required only for interconnected VoIP providers, are of sufficient scope or uniformity across all covered providers, to satisfy the Commission's obligation to promote the safety of life and property and ensure consistent 911 services. Although not all subscribers may receive backup power information from more than one provider in a given year, we acknowledge that backup power information may be confusing especially for unique populations struggling during the technology transition, or those who may need to switch providers often, such as military families needing to relocate. We find that it is in the public interest for the Commission to establish a uniform requirement to provide minimum information as described below in order to ensure that all subscribers of covered services are equipped with necessary information to access 911 services during power outages regardless of provider or technology used.

    54. Adoption of best practices established by CSRIC, as recommended by some industry commenters, may help, and we do not intend to discourage adoption of these practices. However, we are not convinced that the voluntary adoption of these practices without a standard, mandatory baseline will eliminate consumer confusion. We therefore address these concerns by requiring minimum subscriber disclosure obligations, while at the same time encouraging providers to voluntarily follow additional CSRIC best practices regarding backup power.

    55. As NCTA discussed, current Commission rules require a limited customer notification for interconnected VoIP service providers. This requirement, however, is only for a subset of covered providers considered in this Report and Order, and we find that the information currently required is too limited to fully inform consumers about backup power. Specifically, section 9.5(e)(1) of the Commission rules requires customer notifications for circumstances such as “loss of electrical power,” “under which E911 service may not be available through the interconnected VoIP service or may be in some way limited by comparison to traditional E911 service.” Informing consumers of the circumstances under which their E911 service is not available does not adequately inform a consumer on how to purchase, efficiently use, monitor, or replace backup power at the consumer's premises.

    56. We conclude that requiring providers to develop and implement subscriber disclosures regarding backup power with minimum baseline disclosures serves the public interest and will promote access to 911 while being of minimal cost to the providers. As CenturyLink notes, there is a clear public benefit in promoting consumers' awareness of the need for affirmative action to acquire and maintain backup power. According to the Communications Workers of America (CWA), “Commission oversight is essential to encourage . . . consumer education about the time limits and capabilities of battery-provided backup power.” Attorneys General state that “enabling consumers to prepare themselves for emergencies and avoiding public confusion should be fundamental Commission goals.” We agree with these commenters, and others, who recognize the importance of consumer information in managing the historical consumer expectations regarding continuity of communications. As described in detail below, we also find the costs to providers in making the required disclosure to be minimal.

    b. Minimum Information Elements

    57. The disclosure requirements adopted today are intended to equip subscribers with necessary information to purchase and maintain a source of backup power to enhance their ability to maintain access to reliable 911 service from their homes. Several parties commented on what information should be included in the disclosures. For example, some commenters strongly support including information about battery life spans, procedures for ordering, installing, replacing, and extending battery life during a power outage. The City of New York recommends that we require providers to furnish information to assist in extending the “useful life of battery backup” such as powering off the system or closing applications. APCO suggests that a public education requirement include information on “any impact to 9-1-1 services.” The respective Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the State of New York strongly support consumer education addressing the many factors that can affect the amount of “stand-by time” a backup power solution provides. The California PUC urges the Commission “to mandate that service providers give customers educational materials consistent with California's existing requirements,” which include, for example, requiring providers to tell their customers that their services require backup power on the customer's premises, limitations of service, and potential service failure during power outages. The California PUC also requires providers to tell consumers about how to best “maximize the ability to make or receive necessary phone calls during an outage.”

    58. In addition to commenting on the appropriate level of disclosure in any Commission requirements, some commented on the opportunity for states to require more extensive disclosure. For example, the California PUC requests that the Commission allow the states to “adopt more extensive backup power requirements.” Similarly, NARUC suggested that the Commission establish “a floor” that does not impact more protective state-level measures.

    59. Several industry commenters identified information that is currently included in some backup power notifications to subscribers. For example, ACA asserts that providers inform potential and current subscribers that their voice service is not powered by the network, and during a power outage, without battery backup, the subscriber may lose access to 911. ACA explains that this notice also alerts customers about specific backup power capabilities of the equipment.

    60. We agree with the commenters who suggest that the Commission adopt minimal requirements for the types of information that service providers must give subscribers, regarding backup power. This will decrease the likelihood of consumer confusion, and ensure that all subscribers have access to basic information about the need for, and how to acquire and conserve, backup power. In this respect, we observe that several providers already give relevant information to their customers; however, the amount and type of information given varies greatly from one provider to another, and thus gives rise to the potential for consumer confusion. This confusion may lead the consumer to fail to take proper precautions to acquire and maintain backup power, and ultimately result in the inability to access 911 at a critical moment during a power outage. Thus, we find it in the public interest to identify minimum information that must be communicated to consumers regarding backup power. In this respect, we require providers to disclose to subscribers the following information: (1) Availability of backup power sources; (2) service limitations with and without backup power during a power outage; (3) purchase and replacement options; (4) expected backup power duration; (5) proper usage and storage conditions for the backup power source; (6) subscriber backup power self-testing and monitoring instructions; and (7) backup power warranty details, if any. In order to minimize the burden on smaller providers, we direct the PSHSB to work with CGB to develop such forms or other documents, prior to the implementation date of these rules for smaller providers, as herein defined, for the use of smaller providers in disclosing the required notifications to their subscribers, including subscribers with disabilities.

    61. Availability of Backup Power Sources. Subscribers must be made aware whether their service is capable of accepting backup power and, after the initiation of service, whether they may obtain backup power from the provider or from a third party. Some providers post this information online, but we find that the posted information is both too limited and not readily accessible by all subscribers. Therefore, it is insufficient notice to subscribers of a critical piece of information that they need to ensure continuity of access to critical 911 services during a power outage. Accordingly, we require providers to inform new and existing subscribers about the availability of compatible backup power sources for their service, as outlined below. Again, we emphasize that providers are not required to research and/or provide information on every possible backup power source that could potentially be compatible with a Covered Service; disclosure obligations under our rules are limited to basic information allowing consumers to make informed choices about their purchase and use of backup power to maintain continuity of access to 911.

    62. Service Limitations With and Without Backup Power. We require providers of Covered Service to notify subscribers about the service limitations with and without the use of a backup power source. As we stated in the NPRM, consumers of wireline telephony may expect their plug-in phones to work during a power outage without any further action on their part. Non-copper based networks and services not based on TDM may not support these traditional wireline functionalities, or may not support them in the ways consumers have come to expect. We are persuaded by commenters who support more fulsome disclosures of service limitations. Accordingly, we require providers of Covered Service to inform subscribers about the impact of power outages on the use of 911 services and the type of service that will continue to work with backup power. For example, the obligation may be satisfied by notifying subscribers that voice service will be unavailable during a power outage without backup power, and that this backup power will not also power services other than voice. Further, to the extent the provider has information about other services at the subscriber premises—for example, home security, medical monitoring devices, or other similar equipment—the provider should notify the subscriber that these services will not be powered by the backup power source for voice service.

    63. At this time, we decline to require providers of a Covered Service to disclose the limitations of cordless handsets during power outages. Commenters such as US Telecom and California PUC note that cordless phones rely on commercial power, and will not function during a power outage. Accordingly, the California PUC supports a requirement that providers tell consumers that “cordless phones will not work in power outage.” However, we observe that the concern about cordless phones not functioning during a power outage exists regardless of the underlying network providing service to a subscriber; that is, it is an equipment issue that does not depend on the type of underlying network—copper, fiber, or cable. Accordingly, we do not believe it is imperative to impose such an obligation here on the service provider.

    64. Purchasing and Replacement Options. Providers of Covered Service must inform subscribers about backup power purchasing and replacement options to enable subscribers to make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase backup power and how to find backup power that is compatible with the service. If, after the initiation of service, the provider does not sell a backup power source directly to subscribers, the provider must give subscribers enough identification information about what type of power source is compatible as well as purchasing options. Such identifying information must, at a minimum, include where to purchase a power source, the approximate cost, and the voltage and type of battery that is compatible with the service. That many providers currently make this information available suggests that the burden of doing so is not unreasonable.

    65. Backup Power Duration. Providers of Covered Service must inform subscribers about the expected duration of the backup power source and factors that impact duration, e.g., usage and storage conditions. We agree with the commenters who argue that standby time can be affected by many factors. Therefore, in addition to explaining the length of time the provider's backup power source is expected to power the service in standby mode and, to the extent possible, the expected amount of talk time, providers of Covered Service must notify subscribers of the proper backup power usage and storage conditions, and how these affect the backup power source operation during a power outage. This obligation includes identifying how subscribers may limit and conserve backup power both before and during a power outage. We agree with the suggestion of the City of New York that providers furnish “information to assist the [subscriber] in extending the useful life of battery backup.” Accordingly, providers of Covered Service must advise subscribers of the proper backup power storage and charging conditions so that subscribers know, for example, whether battery power life, capacity, or run time will decline, whether the batteries must be replaced after a certain amount of time, and the proper storage temperatures. That is, the information provided must at a minimum clearly inform subscribers about the impact of environmental factors.

    66. We strongly encourage providers to assist subscribers in developing a plan for extended backup power by notifying them of options to extend backup power beyond the life of the battery. For example, providers could inform subscribers that they could purchase several backup power units for use during prolonged outages, and provide directions for rotating these as required to keep the units charged. We also strongly encourage providers to inform subscribers of any available accessories such as solar or car chargers, which may be able to recharge a depleted backup power unit. And, when applicable, providers should inform subscribers of the availability of deployed mobile charging stations. This information will arm subscribers with the knowledge necessary to be prepared for extended power outages and to take steps to mitigate disruption to their 911 communications.

    67. Testing and Monitoring. Although we do not require providers to monitor backup power sources, when the subscriber purchases backup power directly from the provider, the provider must inform and instruct subscribers about how to self-monitor and self-test the backup power source. Several commenters support such a requirement, and we find the analogy in the comments of MDTC to be appropriate: “like smoke alarms, IP equipment have similar importance to personal and public safety and is usually dependent upon the user for periodic testing and battery replacement.” We are persuaded by these commenters that providers must clearly explain how a subscriber may test, monitor, and maintain the backup power source. We observe that several providers are currently effectively providing pictorial or other detailed explanations about subscriber self-testing and self-monitoring of backup power. Given their ongoing relationship with their subscribers, we find that providers are in the best position to notify and remind subscribers about how to test and monitor backup power. By furnishing specific instructions to subscribers on how to self-monitor and test backup power sources, providers will decrease consumer confusion, and greatly enhance the public's ability to maintain critical communications during power outages.

    68. Warranty. If the subscriber acquires the backup power from the provider, the provider must explain the elements of the warranty, if any, such as the warranty expiration date, and under what circumstances a replacement would be provided. We note that several providers already effectively offer online information regarding replacement procedures, which suggests that this is information that is helpful to consumers in preserving their ability to reach 911.

    c. Availability of Required Information

    69. Each element of the information described above must be given to subscribers both at the point of sale and annually thereafter, as described below. This information will help subscribers plan in advance to extend the effectiveness of their backup power and ultimately, as we stated in the NPRM, count on the continued availability of 911 service in harsh weather conditions or other emergencies when consumers are most vulnerable.

    70. We sought comment in the NPRM on when providers should make information available regarding backup power. For example, we asked whether the information should be made available at the point of sale, at the initial set up of service, or at some other point in the process. We also asked whether providers should make detailed backup power information available prior to a predicted extreme weather event or other anticipated emergency.

    71. Commenters support disclosure of backup power information to subscribers at various points in time. For example, the Attorneys General argue that the Commission should inform subscribers “when new service requires additional equipment to access emergency services in a power outage.” The CPUC supports providing information upon “service initiation and annually thereafter regarding backup power,” as well as sending “an annual reminder to customers to check the status of their battery.” On the other hand, providers such as CenturyLink see value in asking “at the point-of-sale” if their customers want backup power, at which time consumers will be assessed a “one-time, non-recurring charge.”

    72. We are persuaded by comments supporting an initial disclosure at the point of sale for the new service and an annual disclosure for all subscribers, both new and existing. We agree with AT&T that subscribers should have the information they need to “shop among competitive alternatives for backup power, including the alternative of opting out of backup power altogether.” As commenters note, service providers have an important role in disseminating information to their subscribers. AARP states that the “availability and distribution of accurate information related to CPE backup power from reliable sources is an important means to empower consumers.” Equipped with initial and annual notifications, including the disclosures and information as described above, all subscribers, both new and existing, will be in a better position to make backup power purchase decisions and conduct regular maintenance in order to ensure access to 911 services during power outages.

    73. We also sought comment on how providers should make backup power information available to consumers. Commenters suggest that providers should offer information on Web sites, and in individual electronic and paper billing materials. ACA, for example, states that its members use a variety of approaches, such as posting information on the operator's Web site, to inform subscribers about backup power supplies for CPE. CenturyLink states that “service providers are increasingly communicating with customers about the issue of backup power,” and supplementing brochures provided to customers with information on the company Web site. ESA raises concerns that there may be scenarios, for example with the elderly, requiring “personal interaction with consumers to assist with upgrading or changing a battery.” NTCA, GVNW, and Vantage Point Solutions suggest that consumers that “utilize an assistive device in connection with a disability” should be part of the consumer education process.

    74. We seek to provide flexibility regarding the manner in which providers inform their subscribers, while also honoring any preferences expressed by customers. We thus permit providers to convey both the initial and annual disclosures and information described above by any means reasonably calculated to reach the individual subscriber. For example, a provider may meet this obligation through a combination of disclosures via email, an online billing statement, or other digital or electronic means for subscribers that communicate with the provider through these means. For a subscriber that does not communicate with the provider through email and/or online billing statements—such as someone who ordered service on the phone or in a physical store and receives a paper bill by regular mail—email would not be a means reasonably calculated to reach that subscriber.

    75. We observe that many providers use a variety of methods to offer backup power source information on their Web sites as well as in welcome kits, including charts, pictorial explanations, and links to backup power source manufacturers. We encourage providers to continue to do this, as long as required disclosures are reasonably calculated to reach each subscriber. Posting information on a Web site may be helpful but, by itself, would not satisfy our requirement that notifications be reasonably calculated to reach individual subscribers, even for those subscribers that communicate with the provider via online means. Further, we are persuaded by commenters that there are populations, such as the elderly or individuals with disabilities, who have no or a very limited online relationship with the provider or otherwise may need more targeted consumer education outreach beyond posting online information.

    76. We believe that the cost of these backup power disclosure requirements will be minimal and, thus, will be exceeded by the significant benefits we expect to result from this subscriber disclosure, such as enhanced subscriber access to 911 services. Among other things, we note that the vast majority of providers already furnish subscribers with some backup power information. As a result of current disclosure practices, we expect that only a small share of the providers will need to take additional steps to comply with these rules beyond modifications to existing disclosures. Similarly, providers already furnish subscribers with information upon initiation of service, and are free to include the information we require herein with the other materials, removing the need for a special cost of distribution. Also, in order to limit costs to providers, we make clear above that a service provider may fulfill its disclosure obligation via any means reasonably calculated to reach the consumer, while also honoring any preference expressed by the customer. Such methods may include electronic outreach, including email notification and paperless billing statements; paper copies are not required for subscribers who access and receive information through those means. The annual notification associated with this requirement gives service providers ample time to plan, for example including the appropriate notifications in normally-distributed billing statements in a manner that does not serve to increase the number of printed pages distributed. As noted above, the Commission will further reduce compliance costs by providing guidance as to the required notifications to subscribers. Accordingly, the costs of satisfying the notification requirement should be minimal for service providers, and the benefits of informing consumers of backup power solutions in order to reach 911 service from the subscriber premises during power outages, far outweighs any such minimal costs.

    77. As with the rules obligating providers to offer backup power solutions, there are numerous benefits associated with the disclosure requirements on how commercial power outages affects VoIP service. Millions of Americans have come to rely on their TDM voice service working during a commercial power outage to call 911. With this backdrop, educating consumers that their phones will not work in a commercial power outage absent backup power is essential even if the consumer opts not to purchase backup power. At a minimum, an educated consumer will not have the expectation of relying on a VoIP service only to have it fail to operate when the consumer tries to make a 911 call, wasting valuable time in the process. In this way the consumer notifications not only promote the availability of 911 service in power outages, pursuant to our statutory mandate governing IP transitions, but also promote the “safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication,” the Commission's statutory charge, by enabling customers to know the limitations of their service in an power outage situation and to make alternate arrangements—either via a backup power solution or alternate means of communication—to ensure the 911 call can go through. This is consistent with our findings with respect to requiring minimum wireless location accuracy where we found that the rules “will improve emergency response times, which, in turn, will improve patient outcomes, and save lives.” We find, therefore, that it is reasonable to expect that the rules we adopt today will save lives and result in numerous other benefits that are less quantifiable but still advance important public interest objectives. Given that the notification requirements contained herein have minimal associated costs, we find that the benefits of these rules far exceed the costs.

    3. Community Outreach

    78. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should require providers to develop and implement consumer education plans regarding the availability of backup power. We also inquired whether there is a need for measures beyond written notice to customers. The few commenters that addressed this issue see a need for outreach beyond written disclosures to subscribers for the Nation to make the transition to an all-IP environment effectively and with the least amount of consumer confusion. We agree with NASUCA that a backup requirement without a comprehensive consumer education plan would be of limited value, and we find that a truly comprehensive plan should contain an outreach component. That is, as noted by the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable (MDTC), written notice to subscribers is only a portion of the consumer outreach and education that is necessary during these times of technology transitions.

    79. We agree with MDTC that to provide for flexibility in the delivery of technology transition information, while ensuring its accuracy and effectiveness, providers should develop outreach and education plans in coordination with state, local, and tribal agencies and community organizations. Our Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) notes that “education efforts must include all levels of governments that interact with consumers. In this manner, state, local and tribal governments will be able to assist consumers in making informed choices that satisfy their communications needs.” However, the IAC further believes that providers instead of the FCC, state, local or tribal governments should have the primary responsibility to do consumer outreach on technology transitions. Thus, the IAC asserts that the FCC should “require [ ] providers to inform consumers of their options well before actual transition occurs.” For example, the IAC recommends that “providers should have dedicated phone, Web site and email contacts for consumers to report issues, and to obtain information. The objective of such outreach should be to provide information and answer questions, rather than market new services to consumers.”

    80. We recognize that many providers already offer consumer education beyond providing mere written notice, and they already engage in community outreach as well. We see great value in providers forging closer relationships with communities, so that local officials can know and understand the likelihood that their residents will be able to summon help, or communicate the status of their welfare in an extended power outage. Community outreach can also help ensure the best possible outcome before disaster strikes (for example, by encouraging communities to maintain sufficient supplies of batteries and other UPS equipment).

    81. We also note that many communities have a robust telephone-based alert capability to warn residents of emergencies in their area. For this reason, and for the great value in being able to receive incoming calls from emergency services personnel, providers of covered services should organize their outreach to subscribers pursuant to this Report and Order around the goal of sustaining continuous communications availability.

    82. In order to minimize cost and provide maximum flexibility, at this time, we encourage, but do not require, all providers to engage in the type of community outreach that would be required for a consumer education plan to truly be considered comprehensive.

    D. Legal Authority

    83. Today we adopt rules to educate and empower consumers to take necessary steps to ensure that their “home phone” is capable of making 911 calls during a power outage. These rules are well-grounded in the “broad public safety and 911 authority Congress has granted the FCC.” Congress created the Commission, in part, “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.” Congress specifically directed the Commission to “designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number within the United States for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting assistance,” in legislation the purpose of which was to “encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment through the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for communications . . . to meet the Nation's public safety and other communications needs.” The DC Circuit has also specifically upheld the Commission's extension to interconnected VoIP providers of the obligation “already required of providers of traditional telephone service [to] transmit 911 calls to a local emergency authority.” In 2008, Congress expressly confirmed that authority to adopt rules that “promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-911 services.” Congress has also charged the Commission with promulgating “regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically feasible.”

    84. In this Report and Order, we exercise this broad and longstanding authority over 911 to impose requirements on residential facilities-based voice service providers in their provision of 911 service. Our adoption of rules to enable the continued provision of 911 service during power outages—a logical component of the larger duty to provide 911 service in general—lies clearly within this authority. The Commission's “broad authority” over 911 is grounded in multiple statutory provisions, as discussed above, that work together to promote universal access to 911. The rules we adopt today contribute to the implementation of this statutory scheme by facilitating the provision of 911 service under specific circumstances: when a customer is relying on a residential voice service that is not line-powered to place a 911 call during a power outage. These rules will ensure that customers who may face such circumstances are aware of the limitations of their service and empowered with options for maintaining 911 access in the event of power loss, closing a potential gap in the provision of 911 service. This Report and Order further advances the Commission's statutorily mandated responsibilities over 911 by promoting the availability of 911 service during times when reports of emergencies and requests for assistance may be particularly urgent, as well as by enabling persons with disabilities to maintain 911 access during such periods. The rules will thus help the Commission more effectively implement Congress's statutory goals of ubiquitous and reliable 911 service for all Americans.

    85. Many commenters agree that our adoption of requirements to promote continuity of access to 911 during power outages is an appropriate—and necessary—exercise of our statutory public safety authority. Communications Workers of America states that “[t]he Commission has the statutory obligation to promote public safety through our nation's communications networks” and affirms our view that “protecting public safety is one of the core principles that must guide [the Commission's] policies during the technology transition.” The Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) also contends that “[b]ackup power requirements should be adopted to protect consumers and to meet the Commission's mandate to promote the national defense and the safety of life and property” under Title I. Similarly, the PA PUC “believes that the [FCC] has the statutory authority to address this issue and require that providers have sufficient backup power to maintain 911/E911 connectivity during commercial power outages so long as the federal rules do not preempt more stringent state rules.” AARP comments that “[w]ith regard to the NPRM's questions regarding whether the Commission has sufficient authority, the answer is an unequivocal yes.”

    86. Commenters also cite the importance of safeguarding 911 service in particular as a basis for our adoption of rules proposed in the NPRM. The Electronic Security Association notes that “[n]ot only is standby power for communications important for life safety systems, but it is also critical in allowing the consumer to dial 911 during [power] outages.” AARP similarly observes that “[t]he issue of CPE backup power also overlaps the 911 reliability issue” and suggests that backup power requirements would fill an existing gap because the Commission's 911 reliability rules “do not address the reliability of access network components that are associated with the origination of 911 calls.”

    87. We disagree with Corning's suggestion that the rules we adopt today contravene the holding of American Library. That court's statement that the Commission's “general jurisdictional grant does not encompass the regulation of consumer electronics products . . . when those devices are not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission” is inapposite: the rules we adopt govern the provision of 911 service—which is either “radio or wire transmission”—during power outages. These rules grant providers maximum flexibility to define the technical parameters of backup power solutions they offer to achieve that goal. In the absence of line powering, these solutions may incorporate any number of proprietary and competitively sourced inputs, including D-Cell, lead-acid or lithium-ion batteries, UPS, solar panels, power over Ethernet or other technologies, including combinations thereof, provided that the solution on “offer” can support the required continuity of 911 service during a power failure. This service-oriented requirement is thus far different from the “broadcast flag” rule struck down in American Library. The court held that the latter rule impermissibly “impose[d] regulations on devices that receive communications after those communications have occurred” rather than on “communications themselves.” The requirements we adopt are obligations with respect to radio and wire communications. Indeed, the purpose of these requirements is to promote access to and awareness of solutions that enable 911 calls to be originated during a power outage. The requirements therefore cannot be said to apply “after . . . communications have occurred.” The fact that devices or equipment operating on backup power may remain in standby mode when not in use, or that our performance rule is defined in terms of “standby time,” does not change this analysis. Defining the rule in terms of “standby time” is simply a means of specifying the period of time in which the rule requires 911 service be provided—e.g., during the first 8 hours of an outage. Backup power solutions offered under our rules are not required to meet any performance standards that apply while a device is in standby mode, except that the solution must make 911 calling “available” throughout the standby period.

    88. For similar reasons, we find unavailing AT&T's comment that “[b]ecause the Commission has deregulated CPE, it has disclaimed any authority to impose CPE backup power requirements.” The rules we adopt today do not apply to CPE or regulate CPE. Rather, those rules govern the obligations of service providers to provide access to 911 service during a commercial power outage in the absence of line powering. While solutions offered under our flexible performance rule may encompass—solely at such providers' option—the backup of some devices or equipment that might be classified as deregulated CPE, that does not mean that our rules cannot encompass such equipment when powering such equipment (which is located on a customer's premises) is part of the solution chosen by the service provider. As discussed above, there is no general requirement to provide backup power for all equipment that might be located at the customer's premises. Rather, the requirement is that, in lieu of line powering provided as a part of traditional POTS service, a covered service provider must offer a backup power solution that provides the customer with 911 access during a commercial power outage.

    89. First Amendment. The disclosure obligations we adopt today are permissible under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No commenter asserts otherwise. In general, government regulation of commercial speech will be found compatible with the First Amendment if it meets the criteria laid out in Central Hudson: (1) There is a substantial government interest; (2) the regulation directly advances the substantial government interest; and (3) the proposed regulation is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. As we have noted, the government has a substantial interest, enshrined in Section 1 of the Communications Act, in protecting the safety of the public through the use of wire and radio communications. The Commission has also long observed that “the government has a substantial interest in ensuring that consumers are able to make intelligent and well-informed commercial decisions in an increasingly competitive marketplace.” The disclosures here directly advance that government interest by warning consumers of the potential loss of access to 911 during commercial power failures and informing consumers of backup power options to maintain continuity of such communications. Like the “anti-cramming” rules the Commission adopted in 2012, we conclude that the disclosure requirements adopted here withstand Constitutional scrutiny, in that they advance the substantial government interests of protecting public safety and ensuring that consumers are able to make informed choices about uninterrupted access to 911 through networks that lack line power without requiring any more extensive disclosure than necessary to serve those interests.

    90. Moreover, under the standard set forth in Zauderer, compelled disclosure of “purely factual and uncontroversial” information is permissible if “reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers.” Courts have also recognized that other government interests beyond preventing consumer deception—here, the public safety interest in uninterrupted access to 911—may be invoked to sustain a disclosure mandate under Zauderer. The information about backup power disclosed to subscribers under our rules consists of factual information regarding the limitations of networks not equipped with line powering, and it is not disputed that this limitation exists or affects the provision of 911 service during power outages. This information plays an important role in preventing consumer confusion by setting clear and consistent expectations about subscribers' ability to reach 911 in an emergency. It also allows consumers to make informed decisions about the amount and type of backup power they purchase, further reducing consumer confusion and preserving public trust in the 911 system as a means of reaching emergency assistance.

    E. Sunset Date

    91. The rules we adopt today ensure that consumers are adequately informed about the role of backup power in the technology transitions and that they have the ability to purchase backup power for their service. Clearly delineating the respective roles of the provider and the consumer during this period of transition minimizes the potential for confusion or for unforeseen lapses in 911 service availability during power outages, and creates baseline expectations. Over time, we expect that both the marketplace and consumer expectations will evolve along with advances in technology so that adequate backup power solutions and availability will become commonplace. In light of this prediction, we will sunset the requirements adopted in this Report and Order on September 1, 2025. We anticipate that this ten-year period will allow sufficient time for a “cultural and educational shift” in consumer expectations, along with marketplace and technological development. Consumers will then be empowered to assume primary responsibility over their backup power, similar to the responsibility consumers now bear for mobile devices they may rely on for 911 access during an emergency. If, however, we determine after ten years that the marketplace and expectations have not evolved in the predicted manner we may take appropriate action designed to extend and/or modify the requirements contained herein.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    92. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was included in the NPRM in PS Docket No. 14-174. The Commission sought written comment on the proposals in this docket, including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conforms to the RFA.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    93. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements adopted in this Report and Order.

    94. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix B of the full Report and Order, paragraphs 19-23. In this document, we have assessed the effects of the new rules adopted herein on small business concerns and find that the rules adopted here minimize the information collection burden on such entities.

    C. Congressional Review Act

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

    D. Implementation

    96. In this Report and Order, we require that providers of non-line-powered, facilities-based, fixed, voice residential service, including fixed wireless service intended as POTS replacement, offer new subscribers at the point of sale, at the subscriber's option and expense, a backup power solution that provides 911 access for 8 hours during a commercial power loss. Except as noted below, this provision of our rules will become effective 120 days after publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register. Within three years of the foregoing effective date of the 8-hour obligation, providers must also offer a 24-hour backup power solution. We seek to ensure that the measures we adopt are timely implemented so that consumers can begin to realize the benefits as soon as feasible, while allowing a reasonable time for providers to prepare. Except as noted below, the disclosure provisions of the rules will become effective 120 days after the Commission notifies the public that approval has been received from the Office of Management and Budget.

    97. We delay the effective date of two of the rules we adopt herein for providers that have fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines for an additional 180 days to afford ample time to modify their current practices as necessary to come into compliance with our rules. The obligation of these providers to offer 8 hours of backup power will become effective 300 days after publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register. The disclosure obligations for these providers will become effective 300 days after the Commission notifies the public that approval has been received from the Office of Management and Budget. The obligation of such providers to offer 24 hours of backup power will become effective on the same extended three-year schedule as for all other providers.

    98. Such an accommodation addresses the concerns of some commenters that adopting mandatory backup power obligations for all customers will be particularly burdensome for providers with a small number of lines, and is in line with Commission precedent. While we do not think that the more limited backup power obligations that we adopt herein will be overly burdensome for any provider, we agree with ACA's suggestion that providers with a small number of lines are more resource-constrained and would benefit from additional time to obtain any necessary equipment and prepare materials and processes for disclosure, and prepare materials and processes for disclosure. We note that ACA asserts that smaller operators should be defined as those with fewer than 100,000 voice service customers, and cites the Rural Call Completion Report and Order in support of its position. However, we observe that the Rural Call Completion Report and Order did not define smaller providers in terms of the number of customers, but subscriber lines. We find that providing an accommodation to providers on the basis of subscriber lines, rather than subscribers, is reasonably designed to minimize burdens on smaller providers without compromising the effectiveness of the rules. The number of lines better reflects a provider's size and share of traffic than does the number of subscribers. We find that limited, additional time to comply with these aspects of our rules strikes the right balance between the particular circumstances and resource constraints of providers that serve fewer customers and ensuring that consumers have backup power options available in a timely manner.

    99. For this purpose, we rely on the standard adopted in the 2013 Rural Call Completion proceeding. In the Rural Call Completion Report and Order, the Commission applied the requirements to providers of long-distance voice service who make the initial long-distance call path choice for more than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines. Accordingly, in this proceeding, in an effort to ensure a reasonable burden of compliance, we give providers with fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines an additional 180 days to comply with the obligations adopted in this Report and Order

    V. Ordering Clauses

    100. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 251(e)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 251(e)(3); section 101 of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-283, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Report and Order in PS Docket No. 14-174 is adopted.

    101. It is further ordered that part 12 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 12, is hereby amended as set forth in Appendix C of the full Report and Order.

    102. It is further ordered that the requirements of this Report and Order will become effective as specified in paragraphs 96-99 herein.

    103. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Review Act, the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.

    104. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 12

    Communications equipment, Security measures.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    Final Rules

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 12 as follows:

    PART 12—RESILIENCY, REDUNDANCY AND RELIABILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 155(c), 218, 219, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 332, 403, 621(b)(3), 621(d); 47 U.S.C. 615a-1; and 47 U.S.C. 615c, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 12.5 is added to read as follows:
    § 12.5 Backup power obligations.

    (a) Covered service. For purposes of this section, a Covered Service is any facilities-based, fixed voice service offered as residential service, including fixed applications of wireless service offered as a residential service, that is not line powered.

    (b) Obligations of providers of a Covered Service to offer backup power. Providers of a Covered Service shall, at the point of sale for a Covered Service, offer subscribers the option to purchase backup power for the Covered Service as follows:

    (1) Eight hours. Providers shall offer for sale at least one option with a minimum of eight hours of standby backup power.

    (2) Twenty-four hours. By February 13, 2019, providers of a Covered Service shall offer for sale also at least one option that provides a minimum of twenty-four hours of standby backup power.

    (3) At the provider's discretion, the options in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section may be either:

    (i) A complete solution including battery or other power source; or

    (ii) Installation by the provider of a component that accepts or enables the use of a battery or other backup power source that the subscriber obtains separately. If the provider does not offer a complete solution, the provider shall install a compatible battery or other power source if the subscriber makes it available at the time of installation and so requests. After service has been initiated, the provider may, but is not required to, offer to sell any such options directly to subscribers.

    (c) Backup power required. The backup power offered for purchase under paragraph (b) of this section must include power for all provider-furnished equipment and devices installed and operated on the customer premises that must remain powered in order for the service to provide 911 access.

    (d) Subscriber disclosure. (1) The provider of a Covered Service shall disclose to each new subscriber at the point of sale and to all subscribers to a Covered Service annually thereafter:

    (i) Capability of the service to accept backup power, and if so, the availability of at least one backup power solution available directly from the provider, or after the initiation of service, available from either the provider or a third party. After the obligation to offer for purchase a solution for twenty-four hours of standby backup power becomes effective, providers must disclose this information also for the twenty-four-hour solution;

    (ii) Service limitations with and without backup power;

    (iii) Purchase and replacement information, including cost;

    (iv) Expected backup power duration;

    (v) Proper usage and storage conditions, including the impact on duration of failing to adhere to proper usage and storage;

    (vi) Subscriber backup power self-testing and -monitoring instructions; and

    (vii) Backup power warranty details, if any.

    (2) Disclosure reasonably calculated to reach each subscriber. A provider of a Covered Service shall make disclosures required by this rule in a manner reasonably calculated to reach individual subscribers, with due consideration for subscriber preferences. Information posted on a provider's public Web site and/or within a subscriber portal accessed by logging through the provider's Web site are not sufficient to comply with these requirements.

    (3) The disclosures required under this paragraph are in addition to, but may be combined with, any disclosures required under § 9.5(e) of this chapter.

    (e) Obligation with respect to existing subscribers. Providers are not obligated to offer for sale backup power options to or retrofit equipment for those who are subscribers as of the effective date listed in paragraph (f) of this section for the obligations in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, but shall provide such subscribers with the annual disclosures required by paragraph (d) of this section.

    (f) Effective dates of obligations. (1) Except as noted in paragraphs (b)(2) and (f)(2) of this section, the obligations under paragraph (b) of this section are effective February 16, 2016, and the obligations under paragraph (d) of this section are effective 120 days after the Commission announces approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

    (2) For a provider of a Covered Service that (together with any entities under common control with such provider) has fewer than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines, the obligations in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are effective August 11, 2016, the obligations in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are effective as prescribed therein, and the obligations under paragraph (d) of this section are effective 300 days after the Commission announces approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

    (g) Sunset date. The requirements of this section shall no longer be in effect as of September 1, 2025.

    [FR Doc. 2015-24845 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0099] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Automatic Emergency Braking AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Grant of petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document grants the petition for rulemaking submitted by the Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Road Safe America on February 19, 2015, to establish a safety standard to require automatic forward collision avoidance and mitigation systems on certain heavy vehicles. For several years, NHTSA has researched forward collision avoidance and mitigation technology on heavy vehicles, including forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems. The agency will continue to conduct research and to evaluate real-world performance of these systems through track testing and field operational testing. NHTSA will determine whether to issue a rule in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

    DATES:

    October 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical issues, you may call Dr. Abigail Morgan in the Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-1810. For legal issues, you may call Mr. David Jasinski or Ms. Analiese Marchesseault in the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 19, 2015, the Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Road Safe America (hereon referred to collectively as the “petitioners”) submitted a petition to NHTSA. Their petition requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to establish a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard to require vehicle manufacturers to install forward collision avoidance and mitigation (FCAM) systems on all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. The petitioners claimed that FCAM systems have the potential to provide significant safety, economic, and societal benefits.

    On May 4, 2015, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) submitted a letter supporting the petition for rulemaking. However, CVSA recommended that the mandate for FCAM systems apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more (rather than 10,000 pounds or more) to better conform to existing commercial motor vehicle safety classes.

    There are a number of terms being used by industry and regulators for FCAM technology, including forward collision warning (FCW), crash imminent braking (CIB), dynamic brake support (DBS), automatic emergency braking (AEB), and collision mitigation braking (CMB). Consistent with the terminology used in the petitioners' request, in this notice, the FCAM technologies of focus are the systems that combine FCW alert signals with CMB automatic braking capability.

    FCAM systems use forward-looking sensors, typically radars and/or cameras, to detect vehicles in the roadway. When a rear-end crash is imminent, the FCW system warns the driver of the threat. If the driver takes no action, such as braking or steering, or if the driver does brake but not enough to avoid the crash, a CMB or AEB system may automatically apply or supplement the brakes to avoid or mitigate the rear-end crash.

    In their petition for rulemaking, the petitioners cited estimated safety benefits from a 2012 research study 1 conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), which evaluated the performance and effectiveness of these current and future generation systems. They also identified the systems that are commercially available. The petitioners believe that mandating technology through regulation is the fastest way to ensure the potential safety benefits. Additionally, they believe that additional safety benefits may be achieved from future FCAM systems that may have higher levels of performance than the current systems and that may be able to respond to additional crash scenarios other than rear-end crashes, such as vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes. Furthermore, the petitioners believe that a mandate would cause the system costs to decrease due to high production volumes.

    1 Woodrooffe, J., et al., Performance Characterization and Safety Effectiveness Estimates of Forward Collision Avoidance and Mitigation Systems for Medium/Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Report No. UMTRI-2011-36, UMTRI (August 2012). Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0067-0001.

    For several years, NHTSA has been conducting research on heavy vehicle FCAM technologies. This research includes test track evaluations of first generation systems, evaluation of driver-warning interface effectiveness, and an ongoing field operational test of production systems. Based on this research, the agency agrees with the petitioners that FCAM systems have the potential to save lives by preventing or reducing the severity of rear-end crashes.

    The industry has indicated that next generation automatic emergency braking systems for truck tractors will be commercially available later this year and will have improved performance that enables the vehicle to warn the driver and automatically brake in response to stationary lead vehicles. In addition to the increased performance from the next generation systems, industry is also expected to begin production of automatic emergency braking systems on air-braked single unit trucks with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds in the near future.

    The agency's test experience has been limited to first generation production systems on truck tractors and a prototype system on a motorcoach, and the agency is aware of a few vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and less than or equal to 26,000 pounds sold in the U.S. currently equipped with AEB systems. The agency plans to test the next generation systems as they become available, including AEB systems that are installed on vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and less than or equal to 26,000 pounds. If available, NHTSA would consider this additional information in the rulemaking.

    The European Union (EU) Commission Regulation No. 347/2012 requires an advanced emergency braking system (AEBS) with forward collision warning on most new heavy vehicles, with some exceptions.2 The test scenarios, vehicle speeds, and performance criteria in EU Commission Regulation No. 347/2012 differ from the test criteria that NHTSA developed for its light vehicle automatic emergency braking evaluation that the agency plans to add to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), which has been the basis for the test criteria used to evaluate heavy vehicles. The agency will consider the test criteria required by the European regulation, as it continues to develop its heavy vehicle test procedures and performance metrics.

    2 Commission Regulation (EU) No 347/2012; of 16 April 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to type-approval requirements for certain categories of motor vehicles with regard to advanced emergency braking systems. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:109:0001:0017:EN:PDF.

    Considering the information before the agency, including the information referenced in the petition, NHTSA grants the February 19, 2015 petition in accordance with 49 CFR part 552 and initiates a rulemaking proceeding with respect to forward collision avoidance and mitigation systems on vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The granting of the petition from Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Road Safe America does not mean that the agency will issue a final rule. The determination of whether to issue a rule is made after study of the requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30162, 30166, and 49 CFR part 552; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Raymond R. Posten Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26294 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300, 600, 660, and 665 [Docket No. 070516126-5907-04] RIN 0648-AV12 International Affairs; High Seas Fishing Compliance Act; Permitting and Monitoring of U.S. High Seas Fishing Vessels AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final action sets forth regulatory changes to improve the administration of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act program and the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas. This final rule includes, for all U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, adjustments to permitting and reporting procedures. It also includes requirements for the installation and operation of enhanced mobile transceiver units (EMTUs) for vessel monitoring, carrying observers on vessels, reporting of transshipments taking place on the high seas, and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems. This final rule has been prepared to minimize duplication and to be consistent with other established requirements.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective January 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wildman, Trade and Marine Stewardship Division, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NMFS (phone 301-427-8386 or email [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The purposes of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA; 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.) are (1) to implement the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement) and (2) to establish a system of permitting, reporting and regulation for vessels of the United States fishing on the high seas. 16 U.S.C. 5501. “High seas” is defined in the HSFCA and its implementing regulations as waters beyond the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) of any nation, to the extent that such territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) is recognized by the United States. 16 U.S.C. 5502 (3); 50 CFR 300.11.

    The HSFCA authorizes a system of permitting U.S. fishing vessels that operate on the high seas to satisfy the obligation of Parties to the Compliance Agreement (Parties) to require that fishing vessels flying their flags obtain specific authorization to operate on the high seas. The HSFCA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to establish conditions and restrictions on each permit issued under HSFCA as necessary and appropriate to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Compliance Agreement. 16 U.S.C. 5503 (d). At a minimum, such conditions and restrictions must include the marking of the permitted vessel in accordance with the FAO Standard Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels, and reporting of fishing activities. Parties are also responsible for ensuring that their authorized vessels do not undermine conservation and management measures, including those adopted by international fisheries management organizations, or by treaties or other international agreements. Accordingly, the HSFCA prohibits the use of fishing vessels on the high seas in contravention of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. 16 U.S.C. 5505(1). A list of the international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States is published by NMFS in the Federal Register from time to time, in consultation with the Secretary of State, as required by section 5504(e) of the HSFCA. The last such notice was published on May 19, 2011 (76 FR 28954). NMFS reinforces this prohibition by requiring a high seas fishing permit for any vessel operating on the high seas and, through the permit, authorizing only those activities that would not undermine international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. The HSFCA also gives NMFS discretion to impose permit conditions and restrictions pursuant to other applicable law, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, in addition to international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. See 16 U.S.C. 5503(d); Turtle Island Restoration Network v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 340 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003).

    Finally, the HSFCA authorizes NMFS to promulgate regulations “as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Agreement and [the Act],” including its permitting authorities. 16 U.S.C. 5504(d). In promulgating such regulations, NMFS shall ensure that “[t]o the extent practicable, such regulations shall also be consistent with regulations implementing fishery management plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., which provides broad authority to establish measures for the conservation and management of fisheries. Id. at 1853(b)(14).

    Regulations implementing the HSFCA were first promulgated in 1996 (61 FR 11751, March 22, 1996). The initial regulations included application and issuance procedures for high seas fishing permits. Subsequent regulations promulgated in 1999 (64 FR 13, January 4, 1999) specified how high seas fishing vessels must be marked for identification purposes and required vessel owners and operators to report catch and fishing effort when fishing on the high seas.

    On April 13, 2015, NMFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action (80 FR 19611) to codify NMFS' procedures for reviewing its high seas fishing authorizations under environmental laws, particularly the ESA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Another objective of this action is to improve the monitoring of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas. In order to enhance the U.S. government's ability to ensure compliance with international conservation and management measures. Furthermore, this action describes how NMFS will, through high seas permit conditions and restrictions, address impacts to vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) from bottom fishing consistent with international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States and United Nations General Assembly resolutions regarding VMEs. Additionally, NMFS will continue to assess the impact of the long-term exemption on the use of an EMTU, set forth in § 300.337(d)(2) of this rule, on the efficacy of the HSFCA VMS provisions and may make appropriate adjustments, including elimination of the long-term exemption, through a future rulemaking.

    Responses to public comments received on the proposed rule are set forth below.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS has made one change to the final rule in light of comments received on the proposed rule. Section 300.333(i) in the proposed rule, which addressed provisions for permit modification and revocation, has been modified to clarify that modification, suspension, or revocation of a high seas permit will be carried out consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law. Additional detail is provided in Responses to Public Comments section below.

    Responses to Public Comments

    NMFS received 18 public comments on the proposed rule. Comments were received from the Western Fish Boat Owners Association, the American Albacore Fishing Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, and individual west coast albacore fishers potentially affected by new requirements in this rule.

    General Comments

    NMFS received numerous comments from west coast albacore fishers who voiced their view that the proposed rule, if finalized, would impose considerable and unnecessary burdens. These fishers noted that the additional burden on the fleet resulting from the requirements contained in this rule would have adverse impacts on vessels, families, onshore support businesses, local communities, and consumers. Commenters noted the rule could reduce access to high seas fisheries by U.S. vessels and ensure that an increasing portion of catch would be taken by foreign vessels that are not subject to similar requirements. Commenters also noted that the U.S. albacore fishery already has mandatory logbook requirements that would not change under this new rule, and the information in these logbooks provides all the information necessary to monitor this fishery.

    Response: NMFS recognizes the new EMTU and observer requirements will primarily impact those fishers who do not currently have to comply with such requirements in domestic fisheries or in international fisheries managed pursuant to conservation and management measures adopted by Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs). NMFS has therefore made efforts to mitigate these new burdens by informing fishers of possible reimbursement for the cost of purchasing an EMTU unit (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/slider_stories/2015/3june15_vms_program_codifies_requirements.html). Additionally, NMFS notes that observer coverage will not be required under this rule where such coverage is already mandated under other legal authorities. NMFS will also carefully take into consideration both the scientific need for observer coverage as well as the characteristics of the fishery when designating high seas vessels for observer coverage.

    These new requirements are deemed necessary to improve U.S. capacity to monitor its vessels' compliance with domestic laws, including those used to implement RFMO requirements (both for those RFMOs to which we are a party as well as those recognized by the United States for purposes of the Compliance Act). This will enhance the United States' ability to comply with its international obligations, including the obligation to report high seas fishery data to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. NMFS believes the cost of complying with these new requirements is justified in light of the benefits that will be gained from a uniform level of real-time monitoring of all high seas activities conducted by U.S. fishers.

    Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transmitting Units (EMTUs)

    Comment 1: Several west coast albacore fishers noted that under WCPFC regulations, EMTUs are required for all vessels that fish west of the 150W line. This includes some of the larger U.S. albacore vessels. These fishers commented that EMTUs should not be required for pole and line and troll vessels fishing for albacore east of the 150W line. These fishers also noted that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) only requires VMS on vessels greater than 24 meters in length and the regulations developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the albacore fishery under its purview do not require VMS. It was also noted that Canadian vessels under 24 meters are not required to have VMS.

    Response: In light of U.S. obligations under the Compliance Agreement to ensure that U.S. fishing vessels on the high seas do not engage in any activity that undermines the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures, NMFS considers it necessary to require all vessels permitted to fish on the high seas be equipped with EMTUs. NMFS also notes that under its existing regulations, all U.S. vessels with WCPFC endorsement permits must continuously operate a VMS unit while at sea, regardless of where the vessel operates, i.e., east or west of the 150W meridian.

    Comment 2: Several west coast albacore fishers noted that the mandatory EMTU requirement is onerous, particularly since most albacore vessels fish inside the U.S. EEZ and only occasionally go out into high seas waters. With the new EMTU requirement, however, these commenters noted that many vessels would forgo obtaining the high seas permit because of the cost associated with procuring and operating an EMTU.

    Response: NMFS notes that, in contrast with logbooks, VMS/EMTU reports are received in real time, enabling more timely monitoring and enforcement. NMFS recognizes the additional cost burden associated with procuring and operating EMTUs and offers a reimbursement program to provide eligible vessel owners with up to $3,100 towards the cost of procuring an EMTU unit (see “further information” below).

    Comment 3: Since the focus of the proposed rule is on the activities of U.S. fishers on the high seas, several west coast albacore fishers questioned the necessity of a requirement for the EMTU to transmit while a U.S. vessel is still within the U.S. EEZ.

    Response: NMFS considered the alternative of only requiring EMTU operation on the high seas but allowing units to be powered down while a vessel is in the U.S. EEZ or in the EEZ of another country, but determined that such actions would weaken the effectiveness of using EMTU position information to monitor the locations of high seas fishing vessels. Allowing power-downs whenever in the U.S. EEZ, in addition to the in-port and long-term exemptions provided in the rule, could also encourage non-compliance and undermine NMFS' ability to monitor U.S. high seas fishing vessels.

    Comment 4: West coast albacore fishers noted that requirements in the rule to notify NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) of EMTU power-up during office hours is burdensome and waiting for email confirmation from OLE regarding the receipt of such notifications would be another burdensome delay.

    Response: NMFS recognizes that OLE office hours are somewhat constraining, but notes that vessel owners could choose to leave EMTUs on and not power them down to help alleviate pre-planning for turning on such units. NMFS also notes such power up notifications from fishers to OLE may take place after office hours although OLE acknowledgement of receipt will take place during business hours. OLE makes best efforts to minimize delays in its responses to fishers.

    Comment 5: Several west coast fishers stated their view that the initial cost and expenses associated with EMTU installation and operation are significant. They furthermore noted that the lost income resulting from downtime while having an EMTU unit installed and the additional expense of travelling to a different location to have an EMTU unit installed are not included in NMFS cost estimates.

    Response: NMFS recognizes the additional cost burden associated with procuring EMTUs and did account for the time necessary to have an EMTU installed as part of its cost estimate. NMFS also has a reimbursement program that will offer up to $3,100 towards the cost of the EMTU unit for eligible vessel owners (see “further information” below). Such units can usually be installed without unduly impacting the vessel's normal operations.

    Comment 6: Several west coast albacore fishers noted that, with regard to the proposed requirement for high seas vessels to possess a backup communications device in the event of an EMTU failure, it was unclear what kind of backup communications device would be required. These fishers noted that although U.S. vessels are required by the Coast Guard to carry a single side band radio when offshore, such a radio may not be capable of meeting the functionality requirements delineated by NMFS in the proposed rule.

    Response: NMFS notes that as long as the communications device is two-way and capable of real-time communications per § 300.337(k) in the final rule, NMFS would allow fishers to use a device of their choosing whether it be a satellite phone or some other communications device, including a single side band radio.

    Comment 7: West coast albacore fishers expressed their view that there are no bycatch issues in this fishery, and there are no closed areas where pole and line and troll vessels fish. Because this is the case, these fishers view the EMTU requirement as being unnecessary and creating a considerable financial and administrative burden.

    Response: Although there may be little bycatch of protected species in the west coast albacore fishery, NMFS is required under the Compliance Agreement to monitor all its high seas fishing vessels and believes the enhanced compliance monitoring and enforcement benefits obtained from the EMTU requirement justify the cost of procuring and operating such equipment, a significant portion of which may be lessened through the reimbursement program for eligible fishers needing to procure an EMTU. Furthermore, VMS monitoring allows the U.S. government to comply with its international obligations by ensuring that vessels not authorized to fish in certain areas (for example, west of 150 degrees longitude without a WCPFC Area Endorsement) are not fishing there.

    Requirements for Observers

    Comment 1: Several west coast albacore fishers noted that the new observer requirement would be problematic due to the small size of most U.S. pole and line and troll vessels fishing for albacore off the west coast. It was furthermore noted that the IATTC does not have observer requirements and neither do regulations developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the albacore fishery under its purview.

    Response: NMFS notes that the new observer requirement is consistent with regulations for Pacific HMS fisheries (including the north Pacific albacore fishery) at 50 CFR 660.719(a), which states that “all fishing vessels with permits issued under this subpart and operating in HMS fisheries, including catcher/processors, at-sea processors, and vessels that embark from a port in Washington, Oregon, or California and land catch in another area, may be required to accommodate an NMFS certified observer on board to collect scientific data.” That being said, NMFS would carefully take into consideration both the scientific need for observer coverage as well as the characteristics of the fishery when designating high seas vessels for observer coverage.

    Comment 2: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) noted that the proposed rule includes a new requirement stating that “[w]here observer coverage is not otherwise required by other regulations or relevant RFMO conservation and management measures, NMFS may select for at-sea observer coverage any vessel that has been issued a high seas fishing permit.” Although the preamble to the proposed rule clarifies that this requirement “would not be invoked by NMFS if the vessel will already be carrying an observer pursuant to other legal authorities,” HLA believes it does not speak to the situation where a fishery is already generally subject to a rigorous observer monitoring program.

    Response: NMFS will take other applicable observer coverage requirements into consideration in our assignment of observers under this final rule. As stated in the preamble of the proposed rule, this requirement would not be invoked by NMFS if the vessel will already by carrying an observer pursuant to other legal authorities. NMFS does not view amending the regulatory text as desirable since it could lessen the agency's flexibility in deploying scientific observers to monitor unforeseen issues that could arise unexpectedly in a high seas fishery.

    Provisions for Permit Modification and Revocation

    Comment 1: HLA notes that the proposed rule includes a new provision that would allow NMFS to “modify, suspend, or revoke high seas permits if permitted activities impact living marine resources in ways that were not foreseen or anticipated at the time of permit issuance or are in contravention of an international conservation and management measure or are in violation of any provision of domestic law.” HLA is concerned with the ambiguity of the phrase “impact living marine resources in ways that were not foreseen or anticipated” and recommends NMFS modify the proposed § 300.333(i) to eliminate the phrase “may impact living marine resources in ways that were not foreseen or anticipated at the time of permit issuance” and provide a more transparent standard for the regulated community. In addition to this proposed revision, HLA believes NMFS should provide an administrative process whereby the permit holder may contest the permit modification, suspension, or revocation. HLA notes its proposed revisions would require NMFS to provide reasonable notice to the permit holder before a permit is modified or revoked, as well as an opportunity to be heard, consistent with due process requirements.

    Response: Under this rule, consistent with international conservation and management measures and applicable law, NMFS authorizes the issuance of high seas fishing permits for high seas fisheries where fishing activities have been analyzed in accordance with the ESA, NEPA, and other applicable law. However, new information about fishing activities and impacts to living marine resources may arise after a fishery is authorized and permits are issued. Recognizing this, § 300.333(i) provides NMFS with authority to modify, suspend, or revoke a permit, as needed. Prior to doing so, NMFS would provide affected permit holders the new information that was not available and therefore not considered at the time of permit issuance, along with the rationale for the proposed permit modification, suspension, or revocation. In response to comments, NMFS has revised the final rule to refer to impacts that were “not considered” (as opposed to “not foreseen or anticipated”) at the time of permit issuance to provide more clarity. Broad language is necessary here because it is impossible to anticipate and codify all of the types of new information that could lead NMFS to modify, suspend, or revoke an HSFCA permit. However, the final rule also explains that, in the event of a potential permit change, NMFS would notify affected permit holders and provide an opportunity to respond, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and other applicable law. Individual permit infractions will continue to be handled in accordance with procedures at 15 CFR part 904. Beyond the permit change provision of § 300.333(i), NMFS notes that § 300.334(d)-(f) provides broader authority to delete a fishery from the authorized fisheries list through rulemaking. Among other things, a relevant consideration is whether fishing activities would detrimentally affect the well-being of a regulated species of fish, marine mammal, or ESA-protected species. If NMFS were to delete an authorized fishery, any activities on the high seas related to that fishery would be prohibited.

    Procedures for Deletion of a Fishery From the List of Authorized High Seas Fisheries

    Comment 1: The HLA stated it is essential that the process to delete a fishery from the list of authorized high seas fisheries involve a full administrative process, including issuance of a proposed rule and the opportunity for public comment, similar to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) List of Fisheries. The HLA view is that the proposed regulations only provide such process for the addition of fisheries—not for the deletion of fisheries. In HLA's view, such a deletion of a fishery without notice and the opportunity for comment would violate due process requirements.

    Response: Section 300.334(d) of the rule provides for rulemaking procedures to take place in the case of any revision (addition or deletion) to the list of authorized high seas fisheries and § 300.334(f) reiterates that NMFS will issue a final rule announcing any deletion from the list of authorized high seas fisheries. NMFS would conduct the rulemaking consistent with the APA which generally requires publication of a proposed and final rule, opportunity for public comment and delayed effectiveness for a final rule, but also provides for good cause waiver of notice and comment when impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Any such action would also be conducted consistent with the ESA, MMPA, MSA, and other applicable law.

    Conditions for Obtaining or Renewing a Permit or Authorization

    Comment 1: The HLA notes that § 300.334(b)(2) of the proposed regulations, if finalized, will require a new applicant for a high seas permit to “obtain and renew any appropriate permits or authorizations.” Based on HLA's past experience, there are situations that may arise in which a required authorization by NMFS for a given fishery is overdue (such as the issuance of a negligible impact determination under the MMPA) as a result of agency delay. In this situation, vessels in the fishery that already have permits are typically allowed to continue fishing under a temporary extension, which is issued by an agency letter. It is not clear to HLA whether § 300.334(b)(2) will prevent a new vessel from receiving a high seas permit or authorization in this situation. HLA recommends that NMFS clarify in the preamble to the final rule or in the final regulations that this condition will not apply to situations in which an authorization cannot be obtained as a result of agency delay or fault by the agency.

    Response: NMFS recognizes there are temporary situations such as those noted by HLA. We believe that the phrase “permit or authorization” in § 300.334(b)(2) of the final rule is broad enough to encompass a temporary extension of a permit issued via an agency letter.

    Further Information for High Seas Vessel Owners Applying for Reimbursement for Purchase of a Type-Approved VMS/EMTU Unit

    High seas vessel owners that do not currently possess VMS/EMTU units type-approved for use on the high seas may apply for reimbursement by contacting the VMS reimbursement program at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (www.psmfc.org).

    Vessel owners are reimbursed on a first-come, first-served basis until funds for the reimbursement program are exhausted. The standard processing time is within 30 days of a completed application. Since funding for these reimbursements in only available until the end of 2015, NOAA recommends VMS installations/activations be made no later than November 15, 2015, and all applications for reimbursement be submitted to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission no later than 5 p.m./PST on November 30, 2015.

    Classification

    This final rule is published under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with this and other applicable laws.

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA describes the economic impact this final rule will have on small entities. This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19611). A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained above in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The analysis follows. A copy of the full FRFA is available from NMFS (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

    The final rule will apply to owners and operators of U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas, including harvesting vessels, refrigerated cargo vessels, and other vessels used to support fishing. There are approximately 600 U.S. vessels permitted under the HSFCA to fish on the high seas. The majority of these permitted vessels are longliners, purse seiners, trollers, or pole and line vessels that fish for highly migratory species. There are also small numbers of gillnetting, squid jigging, hand or other lining, multipurpose, and trawl vessels.

    In this RFA analysis, an individual vessel is the proxy for each business entity. Although a single business entity may own multiple vessels, NMFS does not have a reliable means at this time to track ownership of multiple vessels to a single business entity. Based on limited financial information about the affected fishing vessels, NMFS believes that all the affected fish harvesting businesses, except for the Pacific tuna purse seine vessels, are small entities as defined by the RFA; that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $20.5 million.

    Projecting Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    For each element of the final rule, the analysis of impacts to small entities is described below.

    Permit Application Process. NMFS currently authorizes fisheries on the high seas only after appropriate reviews are completed pursuant to the ESA, MMPA, NEPA, and other applicable law. Applicants select from a list of such authorized fisheries when applying for a high seas fishing permit. The final rule will codify this procedure. Vessel owners and operators apply for a high seas fishing permit every 5 years, paying an application fee currently set at $129 and completing the application form, which is estimated to take 30 minutes. The rule will not change these burdens.

    The final rule is explicit about the requirement that vessels harvesting or participating in operations on the high seas in support of harvesting, such as transshipment and provision of supplies or fuel, have on board a valid high seas fishing permit. NMFS expects this aspect of the final rule to result in few additional applications for high seas permits, if any, because transshipment of fish on the high seas is prohibited in some fisheries and, where it is not prohibited, records show few instances of transshipment. NMFS is not aware of any U.S. vessels that provide supplies or fuel to harvesting vessels on the high seas.

    The rule will require a photograph of the high seas fishing vessel to be submitted with the permit application. The time necessary to photograph the vessel, print or scan the photograph, and attach it to the application is estimated to take 30 minutes per application.

    The final rule will allow a person, which could include an organization or a group of persons, to request that NMFS add a fishery to the list of fisheries authorized on the high seas. A request will need to include the following information:

    (a) The species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested and the anticipated amounts of harvest and bycatch.

    (b) The approximate times and places fishing will take place, approximate number of vessels participating, and the type, size, and amount of gear to be used.

    (c) A description of the specific area that may be affected by the fishing activities.

    (d) A description of any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fish stocks, marine mammals, species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their critical habitat.

    (e) If requested by NMFS, any additional information necessary for NMFS to conduct analyses under ESA, MMPA and NEPA.

    Making the request to add an authorized fishery is expected to take approximately 110 hours. This time would be spent gathering and compiling the required information. NMFS does not expect such requests on a regular basis. For the purposes of this FRFA, NMFS estimates that one request might be submitted every 5 years. The impact from this aspect of the final rule is not expected to be significant because this is not a requirement, but an option for the public, and such requests are expected to be made infrequently.

    Installation and Operation of EMTUs. The final rule will require the installation of EMTUs on all high seas fishing vessels. The EMTU will need to be operated at all times, except when the vessel will be at a dock or permanent mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours, or when the vessel will not operate on the high seas or in any fishery that requires EMTU operation for more than 30 consecutive days. Notices prior to EMTU power-down and power-up will need to be provided to NMFS.

    Under the final rule, approximately 200 of the currently permitted high seas fishing vessels will need to install an EMTU. The remaining 400 or so vessels currently holding high seas fishing permits are already subject to EMTU requirements and will not bear any additional compliance costs as a result of this final rule.

    The majority of the approximately 200 affected vessels are albacore trollers or pole and line vessels operating in the Pacific Ocean. These vessels have generally not been subject to VMS requirements contained in other regulations. The cost of compliance with this requirement includes the cost of purchase, installation, maintenance, and operation of the EMTU. The costs of purchase and installation are treated as one-time costs because this analysis shows costs just in the near-term future. Table 1 summarizes the costs associated with the EMTU requirement. A description of the estimates and calculations used in Table 1 is provided below the table.

    Table 1—Estimated Costs of Compliance With EMTU Requirements Description Cost EMTU purchase Up to $3,100 Installation cost (one-time) $50-400 ($400 used for estimation) Daily position report costs (Hourly, 24/day; $0.06/report *24 reports/day) $1.44 Annual position report cost per vessel ($1.44/day * 365 days/year) $525/vessel Annual EMTU maintenance cost $50-100 ($100 used for estimation) Total cost per vessel (Year 1; unit + installation + position reports) $4025 Total cost per vessel after reimbursement of EMTU cost (for eligible vessels only) $925 Cost per vessel (Year 2 and beyond; position reports and EMTU maintenance) $625/vessel Number of affected vessels 200 Total cost (Year 1; total cost per vessel before reimbursement * number of affected vessels) $805,000 Total cost (Year 2 and beyond; total cost per vessel * number of affected vessels) $125,000

    Units must be installed by a qualified marine electrician. Based on experience in other fisheries with EMTU requirements, NMFS believes that installation cost can range from $50 to $400, depending on the vessel, proximity to the installer, and the difficulty of the installation. For estimation purposes, $400 was used to calculate the costs of compliance with this final rule.

    The cost of transmitting data through the EMTU depends on the type of EMTU installed and the communication service provider selected. For the purposes of this rulemaking, NMFS is assuming the cost of EMTU position data transmissions is approximately $0.06 per transmission. This equates to $1.44 per day for the location reports, at a rate of one transmission per hour. Providing position reports throughout the year will cost a high seas fishing vessel $525 (365 days per year * 24 position reports per day * $0.06 = $525).

    The EMTU may be powered down if the vessel will be at the dock or mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours or if the vessel, for 30 or more consecutive days, will not be operating on the high seas or participating in a fishery that requires EMTU operation. A message notifying NMFS of the power-down must be sent to NMFS prior to powering down the unit and again when the EMTU will be powered back up. If an EMTU is powered down for portions of the year, the actual annual cost of transmitting position data will be less. Thus the annual costs of EMTU operation will vary among individual vessels depending on the number of days an EMTU may be powered down.

    The cost of compliance for vessel owners is estimated to be $4025 per vessel in the first year (Table 1). This is the cost of compliance prior to receiving reimbursement for the cost of the EMTU. Reimbursement funds of up to $3,100 per VMS unit will reduce the cost to $925 per vessel, on average, for reimbursement-eligible vessels. The cost of operating the EMTU in year two and beyond will include the cost of sending position reports and maintenance and is estimated to be $625.

    Aside from the costs of purchase, installation, and operation of EMTUs, vessel owners or operators will need to spend time purchasing a unit, having it installed, and submitting an installation and activation report form. These steps are estimated to take an average of 4 hours. The notices prior to power-down and powering back up the EMTU are estimated to take 10 minutes each.

    The compliance cost of obtaining, carrying on board, and monitoring communication devices required to be used in the event of an EMTU failure is expected to be zero, as NMFS believes all affected small entities already carry and monitor such devices.

    Requirement to Carry an Observer. Under the final rule, a high seas fishing vessel will be required to carry an observer for the duration of a fishing trip, if so selected by NMFS. When an observer is deployed pursuant to this rule, NMFS will pay the cost of the observer's salary and benefits. Most high seas fishing vessels are already subject to requirements for carrying an observer. For example, in the shallow-set and deep-set longline sectors of the Hawaii longline fleet, 100 percent and approximately 20 percent of fishing trips, respectively, are covered by observers. In authorized fisheries where observers are placed on all participating vessels pursuant to other regulations, the compliance cost of the final rule will be nil.

    In high seas fisheries where only a portion of the high seas fishing vessels are selected for observer coverage, the possibility of being selected to carry an observer may increase under this final rule. However, as noted in response to Comment 8 above, NMFS would carefully take into consideration both the scientific need for observer coverage as well as the characteristics of the fishery when designating high seas vessels for observer coverage. Vessels that are not already subject to any other observer requirements may be selected to carry observers. This includes, but is not limited to, South Pacific albacore trollers, purse seine vessels of Class 5 or smaller participating in the Eastern Pacific tuna fisheries, and some longline vessels in Western Pacific pelagic fisheries.

    When a vessel is selected for observer coverage under this rule, the vessel owner or operator will be required to provide NMFS a notice of their next fishing trip. This notification is estimated to take 5 minutes and cost $1 in communication costs.

    For trips on which an observer is deployed under this new requirement, the affected entity will at least be responsible for the costs associated with providing the observer with food, accommodations, and medical facilities. These costs are expected to be $20 to $50 per day. Assuming a high seas fishing trip averages 20 days in duration, the estimated cost of compliance for accommodating an observer on a vessel would be between $400 and $1,000.

    Transshipment Notices and Reports. For owners and operators of vessels involved in offloading or receiving a transshipment of fish or fish product on the high seas, the final rule will require vessel owners or operators to provide to NMFS notice of transshipments at least 36 hours prior to any transshipment on the high seas and to submit reports of transshipment following the transshipment events.

    Transshipment is also regulated under other applicable law. For example, in the Atlantic Ocean, transshipments (the offloading, unloading, or transferring of fish or fish products from one vessel to another) are generally prohibited, with some exceptions. In the Pacific Ocean, purse seine vessels are prohibited from transshipping in some instances. NMFS is aware that during 2006 to 2009, four to eight vessels offloaded longline-caught fish each year and four to eight vessels received longline-caught fish each year. It is likely that most of these transshipments took place at sea by the Hawaii-based longline fleet, but it is unknown how many of these transshipments took place on the high seas. NMFS also has data on past transshipments on the high seas involving a few U.S. albacore troll vessels.

    Each transshipment notice is estimated to take about 15 minutes and no more than $1 in communication costs to prepare and submit to NMFS.

    Each transshipment report is estimated to take about 60 minutes and $1 in communication costs to prepare and submit to NMFS. Thus, for each transshipment event on the high seas, the time burden is estimated to be 1 hour and 15 minutes and cost $2 for each U.S. flagged vessel involved in the transshipment.

    Reporting Requirements. Existing regulations require submission of high seas fishing logbooks. This final rule deletes that requirement under the HSFCA regulations, and instead, provides that owners and operators of high seas fishing vessels use the reporting forms developed for their authorized fisheries to report high seas catch and fishing effort information. Given that the former reporting requirements would not be changed in a substantive way, the associated compliance cost is unchanged.

    Summary. The final rule may increase the cost of operating on the high seas for all affected entities. Fulfillment of these requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess.

    Significant Alternatives Considered

    NMFS attempted to identify alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the rulemaking and minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities.

    The alternative of taking no action was rejected because it would fail to achieve the objectives of the rulemaking.

    NMFS evaluated an option to rely on existing permit programs, other than the HSFCA permit program, to authorize high seas fishing activities. However, by continuing to require the separate HSFCA permit, NMFS is able to maintain a separate record of vessels permitted to fish on the high seas, facilitating NMFS' ability to submit information regarding U.S. high seas vessels to the FAO as required under the Compliance Agreement. FAO compiles records of vessels authorized to fish on the high seas submitted by the Parties to the Compliance Agreement. The separate HSFCA permit, required under the existing regulations to be carried on board the vessel, is also useful in demonstrating to any domestic inspectors, foreign inspectors operating under the authority of a high seas boarding and inspection scheme adopted by an RFMO to which the United States is party, or foreign port inspectors, that a vessel is permitted to fish on the high seas.

    With respect to the EMTU requirement, one alternative would be to require EMTU operation at all times, which would provide NMFS the ability to monitor a vessel's location at any time. However, NMFS is aware that some vessels holding high seas fishing permits may remain in the EEZ for extended periods and are not currently subject to EMTU operation requirements while in the EEZ. Some of these vessels may also dock their vessels and not engage in fishing for portions of the year. This alternative is not preferred because the regulatory burden could be minimized by providing some exemptions to the EMTU operation requirement, such as exemptions to address the two circumstances described above. The preferred alternative would maintain the ability to monitor high seas fishing vessels yet minimize the regulatory burden.

    Another alternative would be to require EMTU operation only on the high seas. However, allowing units to be powered down while a vessel is in the EEZ of the U.S. for less than the allotted exemption time or in the EEZ of another country would weaken the effectiveness of using EMTU position information to monitor the locations of high seas fishing vessels. For vessels that are highly mobile and could operate at any time of the year, such as many high seas fishing vessels, EMTUs are more effective if they remain in operation at all times. Allowing power-downs whenever in the EEZ, in addition to the in-port and long-term exemptions provided in the proposed rule, could also encourage non-compliance and result in large gaps in NMFS' ability to monitor high seas fishing vessels. Thus, this alternative is not preferred.

    With respect to the requirement for prior notice of high seas transshipments, one alternative would be to allow affected entities to provide the notice of high seas transshipment to NMFS at least one business day in advance of the transshipment, rather than 36 hours as proposed. However, a shorter advance notice would reduce opportunities for NMFS or the U.S. Coast Guard to observe transshipments in the event they are able to meet the transshipping vessels at sea. For this reason, this alternative is not preferred.

    With respect to the transshipment reporting requirements, one alternative would be to impose a different timeframe for submission of the report. The report could be submitted more than 15 days after completion of the transshipment. However, NMFS believes 15 days is a reasonable timeframe, and that extending it further could lead to NMFS not receiving transshipment reports in a timely manner and would not support collection of complete information regarding authorized fisheries.

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the NMFS Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, and the guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all HSFCA permit holders. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The provisions of this rule are administrative in nature and facilitate monitoring of all high seas fishing vessels. The requirements for the installation of VMS EMTUs on vessels, the carrying of observers, and the prior notice and reporting of transshipments on the high seas will facilitate monitoring of vessels and will not have any impacts on the human environment. Moreover, the final rule also includes procedures that incorporate reviews under ESA and NEPA prior to any authorization of activities on the high seas. Therefore, this action is categorically excluded from further environmental review under NEPA pursuant to section 6.03.c.3(i) of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection of information, under OMB Control No. 0648-0304, includes a permit application, vessel marking requirements, and high seas fishing effort and catch reporting. In addition to this collection of information, the final rule includes new requirements listed below.

    The public reporting burden for each requirement has been estimated, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information per response. The estimates are as follows:

    • Inclusion of a vessel photograph in the permit application: 30 minutes.

    • Request for a fishery to be authorized on the high seas (optional): 110 hours.

    • EMTU purchase and installation: 4 hours for purchase, installation, and activation of the EMTU and submittal of the installation and activation report.

    • Position reports: Automatically sent by the EMTU.

    • Notices of EMTU power-down and power-up: 10 minutes each.

    • Prior notice for high seas transshipments: 15 minutes.

    • Transshipment reporting: 1 hour.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The reporting requirements described above amend an existing collection of information, (OMB Control No. 0648-0304) which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

    50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

    50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    50 CFR Part 665

    Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Fisheries, Fishing, Western and central Pacific.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300, 600, 660 and 665 are amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.

    Subpart B—[Removed and Reserved]
    2. Remove and reserve subpart B, consisting of § 300.10 through 300.17. 3. Add subpart Q to read as follows: Subpart Q—High Seas Fisheries Sec. 300.330 Purpose. 300.331 Definitions. 300.332 Issuing offices. 300.333 Vessel permits. 300.334 Fisheries authorized on the high seas. 300.335 Bottom fishing. 300.336 Vessel identification. 300.337 Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Units (EMTUs). 300.338 Observers. 300.339 Transshipment on the high seas. 300.340 Prohibitions. 300.341 Reporting. Subpart Q—High Seas Fisheries Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.

    § 300.330 Purpose.

    This subpart implements the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 (Act), which requires the Secretary to license U.S. vessels fishing on the high seas and to ensure that such vessels do not operate in contravention of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.

    § 300.331 Definitions.

    In addition to the terms defined in section 300.2 and those in the Act and the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on November 24, 1993 (Agreement), the terms used in this subpart have the following meanings. If a term is defined differently in section 300.2, the Act, or the Agreement, the definition in this section shall apply.

    Bottom fishing means fishing using gear that is likely to contact the seafloor during the normal course of fishing operations.

    Enhanced mobile transceiver unit (EMTU) is defined in 50 CFR 600.1500.

    High seas means the waters beyond the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) of any Nation, to the extent that such territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the equivalent) is recognized by the United States.

    High seas fishing permit means a permit issued under this subpart.

    High seas fishing vessel means any vessel of the United States used or intended for use on the high seas for the purpose of the commercial exploitation of living marine resources and as a harvesting vessel, mothership, or any other support vessel directly engaged in a fishing operation. Support vessels include vessels that process or transship fish on the high seas; provide supplies, personnel or fuel on the high seas to other fishing vessels; or conduct other activities in support of, or in preparation for fishing.

    International conservation and management measures means measures to conserve or manage one or more species of living marine resources that are adopted and applied in accordance with the relevant rules of international law, as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and that are recognized by the United States. Such measures may be adopted by global, regional, or sub-regional fisheries organizations, subject to the rights and obligations of their members, or by treaties or other international agreements.

    Observer means any person serving in the capacity of an observer employed by NMFS, either directly or under contract with a third party, or certified as an observer by NMFS.

    Office Director means the director of the NMFS Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection.

    Regional Administrator means any one of the Directors of a NMFS regional office, defined under § 300.2.

    Transship or transshipment means offloading or receiving or otherwise transferring fish or fish products from one fishing vessel to another. Excluded from this definition is net sharing, which means the transfer of fish that have not yet been loaded on board any fishing vessel from the purse seine net of one vessel to another fishing vessel. Fish shall be considered to be on board a fishing vessel once they are on a deck or in a hold, or once they are first lifted out of the water by the vessel.

    Vessel monitoring system (VMS) is defined in 50 CFR 600.1500.

    § 300.332 Issuing offices.

    Any Regional Administrator or the Office Director may issue permits required under this subpart. While applicants for permits may submit an application to any Regional Administrator or the Office Director, applicants are encouraged to submit their applications (with envelopes marked “Attn: HSFCA Permits”) to the Regional Administrator or the Office Director with whom they normally interact on fisheries matters.

    § 300.333 Vessel permits.

    (a) Eligibility. (1) Any vessel owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel is eligible to receive a permit for a fishery authorized on the high seas under this subpart, unless the vessel was previously authorized to be used for fishing on the high seas by a foreign nation, and—

    (i) The foreign nation suspended such authorization, because the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures, and the suspension has not expired; or

    (ii) The foreign nation, within the 3 years preceding application for a permit under this section, withdrew such authorization, because the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures.

    (2) The restrictions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section do not apply if ownership of the vessel has changed since the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures, and the new owner has provided sufficient evidence to the Regional Administrator or Office Director demonstrating that the owner and operator at the time the vessel undermined the effectiveness of such measures have no further legal, beneficial, or financial interest in, or control of, the vessel.

    (3) The restrictions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section do not apply if it is determined by the Regional Administrator or Office Director that issuing a permit would not subvert the purposes of the Agreement.

    (b) Applicability. Any high seas fishing vessel used for fishing, as defined under § 300.2, on the high seas must have on board a valid permit issued under this subpart.

    (c) Application. Permit application forms are available from the NMFS Web site or from any Regional Administrator or the Office Director. Failure to submit a complete and accurate application, along with all other required documentation and the specified fee will preclude issuance of a permit. To apply for a permit under this subpart, the owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel must submit the following to a Regional Administrator or Office Director:

    (1) A complete, accurate application form signed by the vessel owner or operator.

    (2) Information required under this section and § 300.334(a).

    (3) A color photograph showing an entire bow-to-stern side-view of the vessel in its current form and appearance. The photograph must clearly and legibly display the vessel name and identification markings. If the vessel's form or appearance materially changes (such as the vessel is painted another color, the vessel's identification markings change, or the vessel undergoes a structural modification) the vessel owner and operator must submit a new photograph of the vessel within 15 days of the change.

    (4) For vessels with state registration instead of U.S. Coast Guard documentation, the applicant must supply additional vessel information that NMFS may request.

    (5) The fee specified in the application form. Payment by a commercial instrument later determined to be insufficiently funded will invalidate any permit. NMFS charges this fee to recover the administrative expenses of permit issuance, and the amount of the fee is determined in accordance with the procedures of the NOAA Finance Handbook.

    (d) Permit issuance and validity. (1) Except as provided for in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, and subject to paragraphs (a), (c), and (d)(2) and (3) of this section, the Regional Administrator or Office Director will issue a permit, which will include applicable conditions or restrictions, within 15 days of receipt of a completed application and payment of the appropriate fee.

    (2) The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not issue a permit unless an EMTU has been installed and activated on the vessel in accordance with § 300.337(c)(2).

    (3) The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not issue a permit unless the applicant holds a valid permit for the subject vessel for any U.S. domestic fisheries related to the authorized high seas fishery.

    (4) Except as otherwise provided, permits issued under this subpart are valid for 5 years from the date of issuance. For a permit to remain valid to its expiration date, the vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration must be kept current. A permit issued under this subpart is void when the vessel owner or the name of the vessel changes, or in the event the vessel is no longer eligible for U.S. documentation, such documentation is revoked or denied, or the vessel is removed from such documentation.

    (5) A permit issued under this subpart is not transferable or assignable to another vessel or owner; it is valid only for the vessel and owner to which it is issued.

    (e) Display. A valid permit, or a copy thereof, issued under this subpart must be on board any high seas fishing vessel while operating on the high seas and available for inspection by an authorized officer.

    (f) Change in application information. Any changes in vessel documentation status or other permit application information must be reported in writing to the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit within 15 days of such changes.

    (g) Renewal. Application for renewal of a permit prior to its expiration is the responsibility of the permit holder and may be completed per § 300.333(c). The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not consider a permit renewal application to be complete until the permit holder satisfies all required fishing activity report requirements under the permit and § 300.341. The Regional Administrator or Office Director will not issue a renewed permit unless an EMTU has been activated on the vessel in accordance with § 300.337(c)(2) and the applicant holds a valid permit for the subject vessel for any U.S. domestic fisheries related to the authorized high seas fishery.

    (h) Marine mammals and ESA-listed species. Permits issued under this section do not authorize vessels or persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take marine mammals or ESA-listed species. No marine mammals or ESA-listed species may be taken in the course of fishing operations unless the taking is allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), pursuant to regulations, an authorization, or permit granted by NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    (i) Permit Status Changes. NMFS may modify, suspend, or revoke a permit issued under this subpart if permitted activities may impact living marine resources in ways that were not considered at the time of permit issuance; are in contravention of an international conservation and management measure; or violate any applicable law. NMFS will notify an affected permit holder of any potential change in permit status by contacting the permit holder at the address of record provided on the permit application or as updated pursuant to paragraph (f) of this subsection and will provide an opportunity to respond, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.

    § 300.334 Fisheries authorized on the high seas.

    (a) General. When applying for a permit under § 300.333, the owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel must identify in the application the authorized fisheries in which he or she intends to fish. More than one authorized fishery may be selected. The following fisheries are authorized on the high seas:

    (1) 50 CFR part 300, subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries.

    (2) 50 CFR part 300, subpart D—South Pacific Tuna Fisheries.

    (3) 50 CFR part 300, subpart G—Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

    (4) 50 CFR part 635—Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries.

    (5) 50 CFR part 660, subpart K—U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species.

    (6) 50 CFR part 665, subpart F—Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries.

    (7) South Pacific Albacore Troll Fishery.

    (8) Northwest Atlantic Fishery.

    (b) Requirements for authorized fisheries. For each of the authorized fisheries specified on the high seas fishing permit, the owner or operator of the high seas fishing vessel must:

    (1) Abide by the regulations, set forth in other parts of this chapter and Chapter VI, governing those authorized fisheries while operating on the high seas;

    (2) Obtain and renew any appropriate permits or authorizations; and

    (3) Notify the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit immediately in the event that a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA is taken incidental to the fishing activities without authorization under a relevant incidental take statement.

    (c) Change in authorized fisheries. If a high seas fishing permit holder elects to change the authorized fisheries specified on the permit, he or she shall notify the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit of the change(s) and shall obtain the underlying permits for the authorized fisheries prior to engaging in the fishery on the high seas. Per the process under § 300.333(d), the Regional Administrator or Office Director will then issue a revised high seas fishing permit which will expire 5 years from the original effective date.

    (d) Revision of authorized fisheries list. Through rulemaking, NMFS will add a fishery to, or delete a fishery from, the list in paragraph (a) of this section. NMFS may add or delete fisheries from the list after completing any analyses required under the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other applicable laws. In taking such action, NMFS, in consultation with the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council(s) where appropriate, will consider, among other things, whether:

    (1) The proposed fishing activities would detrimentally affect the well-being of the stock of any regulated species of fish, marine mammal, or species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act;

    (2) The proposed fishing activities would be inconsistent with relevant fishery management plans and their implementing regulations or other applicable law;

    (3) Insufficient mechanisms exist to effectively monitor the activities of vessels engaged in the proposed fishing activities; or

    (4) The proposed fishing activities would contravene international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States.

    (e) Request for revision of authorized fisheries list. A person may submit a written request to the Office Director to add a fishery to or delete a fishery from the list. A request to delete a fishery from the list of authorized fisheries must include the name of the fishery; information that addresses considerations under paragraph (d) of this section; and, if requested by NMFS, any additional information necessary for NMFS to conduct analyses required under applicable laws. A request to add a fishery to the list of authorized fisheries must include the following information:

    (1) The species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested and the anticipated amounts of such harvest and bycatch;

    (2) The approximate times and places when fishing is expected to take place, the number and type of vessels expected to participate, and the type, size, and amount of gear expected to be used;

    (3) A description of the specific area that may be affected by the fishing activities;

    (4) A description of any anticipated impacts on the environment, including impacts on fisheries, marine mammals, and species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their critical habitat;

    (5) Other information that addresses considerations under paragraph (d) of this section; and

    (6) If requested by NMFS, any additional information necessary for NMFS to conduct analyses required under applicable laws.

    (7) Once all required information is received to proceed with consideration of a request, NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule, noting receipt of the request to add an authorized fishery, and inviting information and comments. Relevant information received during the comment period may be considered by NMFS and, where appropriate, the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council(s), in analyzing potential environmental impacts of the fisheries and developing any conditions or restrictions. Based on its analysis, considerations under paragraph (d) of this section, and other relevant considerations, NMFS will publish its decision on the request in the Federal Register.

    (f) Deletion of a fishery from the authorized fisheries list. NMFS will delete (i.e., deauthorize) a fishery under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section through publication of a final rule. NMFS will also provide notice to affected permit holders by email and by Registered Mail at the addresses provided to NMFS in the high seas permit application. When a fishery is deleted from the list, any activities on the high seas related to that fishery are prohibited as of the effective date of the final rule. In addition, the high seas permit will be voided unless the permit holder notifies NMFS that he or she elects to change to another authorized high seas fishery or continue in any other authorized fisheries noted on the permit. Once the applicant so notifies NMFS and, if necessary, secures any underlying permits necessary for participation in another authorized high seas fishery, the Regional Administrator or Office Director will then issue a revised high seas fishing permit per the process under § 300.333(d). The revised permit will expire 5 years from the original effective date.

    § 300.335 Bottom fishing.

    (a) Bottom fishing may be permitted on the high seas when authorized by international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States. For bottom fishing activity not subject to international conservation measures recognized by the United States, a person who seeks to engage in such fishing must request authorization of a new high seas fishery as described in § 300.334(e) and then, if the fishery is authorized, must obtain all applicable permits including a high seas fishing permit issued under § 300.333. NMFS may specify conditions and restrictions in the permit to mitigate adverse impacts on VMEs, which may include the types of conditions that have been adopted in relevant RFMO measures recognized by the United States.

    (b) Permit. To be permitted under this section, the owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel must follow the procedures under § 300.334(e) or, if he or she seeks to change an existing permit, must follow the procedures under § 300.334(c).

    § 300.336 Vessel identification.

    (a) General. A vessel permitted under this subpart must be marked for identification purposes in accordance with this section.

    (b) Marking. Vessels must be marked either:

    (1) In accordance with vessel identification requirements specified in Federal fishery regulations issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or under other Federal fishery management statutes; or

    (2) In accordance with the following identification requirements:

    (i) A vessel must be marked with its international radio call sign (IRCS) or, if not assigned an IRCS, must be marked (in order of priority) with its Federal, state, or other documentation number appearing on its high seas fishing permit and, if a WCPFC Area Endorsement has been issued for the vessel under § 300.212, that documentation number must be preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen (that is, “USA-”);

    (ii) The markings must be displayed at all times on the vessel's side or superstructure, port and starboard, as well as on a deck;

    (iii) The markings must be placed so that they do not extend below the waterline, are not obscured by fishing gear, whether stowed or in use, and are clear of flow from scuppers or overboard discharges that might damage or discolor the markings;

    (iv) Block lettering and numbering must be used;

    (v) The height of the letters and numbers must be in proportion to the size of the vessel as follows: for vessels 25 meters (m) and over in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 1.0 m; for vessels 20 m but less than 25 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.8 m; for vessels 15 m but less than 20 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.6 m; for vessels 12 m but less than 15 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.4 m; for vessels 5 m but less than 12 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.3 m; and for vessels under 5 m in length overall, the height of letters and numbers must be no less than 0.1 m;

    (vi) The height of the letters and numbers to be placed on decks must be no less than 0.3 m;

    (vii) The length of the hyphen(s), if any, must be half the height (h) of the letters and numbers;

    (viii) The width of the stroke for all letters, numbers, and hyphens must be h/6;

    (ix) The space between letters and/or numbers must not exceed h/4 nor be less than h/6;

    (x) The space between adjacent letters having sloping sides must not exceed h/8 nor be less than h/10;

    (xi) The marks must be white on a black background, or black on a white background;

    (xii) The background must extend to provide a border around the mark of no less than h/6; and

    (xiii) The marks and the background must be maintained in good condition at all times.

    § 300.337 Requirements for Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Units (EMTUs).

    (a) Vessel position information. The owner or operator of a vessel issued a permit under this subpart, or for which such permit is required, must have installed on board the vessel a NMFS type-approved enhanced mobile transceiver unit (EMTU). The operator or owner of the vessel must ensure that the EMTU is operational and properly reporting positions to NMFS as required by this section, except when exempt under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. If the vessel is also subject to EMTU requirements in other parts of this title, the more restrictive requirements apply.

    (b) Contact information and business hours. With respect to the requirements in this section, vessel owners and operators should consult with the divisional office of the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart. The OLE VMS Helpdesk in OLE headquarters office may also be contacted.

    (c) EMTU installation and activation—(1) EMTU installation. The vessel owner or operator shall obtain and have installed on the fishing vessel, by a qualified marine electrician and in accordance with any instructions provided by the VMS Helpdesk or OLE divisional office, a NMFS type-approved EMTU. OLE is authorized to receive and relay transmissions from the EMTU. The vessel owner and operator shall arrange for a type-approved mobile communications service to receive and transmit position reports and email communications from the EMTU to OLE. NMFS makes available lists of type-approved EMTUs and mobile communications service providers. Vessel owners must ensure that the EMTU and communications service hardware purchased is type-approved for all fisheries and regions in which their vessel will be operating.

    (2) EMTU activation. When an EMTU is installed or reinstalled or the mobile communications service provider changes, or if directed by OLE, the vessel owner and operator shall, prior to leaving port:

    (i) Turn on the EMTU to make it operational;

    (ii) Submit a VMS Installation and Activation Certification form, or an activation report as directed by OLE, to the OLE divisional office within or nearest to the region issuing the permit under this subpart; and

    (iii) Receive confirmation from OLE that transmissions are being received properly from the EMTU.

    (d) EMTU operation. Unless otherwise provided below, and subject to more restrictive requirements where applicable, the vessel owner or operator shall continuously operate the EMTU so that it automatically transmits position information to OLE, once every hour or as directed by OLE.

    (1) In-port exemption: The EMTU may be powered down when the vessel will remain at a dock or permanent mooring for more than 72 consecutive hours and after the notice required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is submitted to OLE. When powering up the EMTU after the in-port exemption, the vessel owner or operator must submit the report required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section at least 2 hours before leaving port or mooring.

    (2) Long-term exemption: The EMTU may be powered down if the vessel will not operate on the high seas, or in any fishery that requires EMTU operation, for more than 30 consecutive days and after the notice required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section is submitted. When powering up the EMTU from the long-term exemption, the vessel owner or operator must submit the report required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

    (3) Prior to each power-down of the EMTU, under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, the vessel owner or operator must report to the OLE divisional office in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart during business hours, via email or other means as directed by OLE: the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; the intent to power down the EMTU; the reason for power-down; the port where the vessel is docked or area where it will be operating; and the full name, telephone, and email contact information for the vessel owner or operator.

    (4) When powering up the EMTU, the vessel owner or operator must report to the OLE divisional office in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart during business hours, via email or other means as directed by OLE: The fact that the EMTU has been powered up; the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; port name; intended fishery; and full name, telephone, and email contact information for the vessel owner or operator.

    (5) If the EMTU is powered up after a long-term or in-port exemption, the vessel owner must receive confirmation from the OLE divisional office in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart that EMTU transmissions are being received properly before leaving port, entering the high seas, or entering a fishery that requires EMTU operation.

    (e) Failure of EMTU. If the vessel owner or operator becomes aware that the EMTU has become inoperable or that transmission of automatic position reports from the EMTU has been interrupted, or if notified by OLE or the U.S. Coast Guard that automatic position reports are not being received from the EMTU or that an inspection of the EMTU has revealed a problem with the performance of the EMTU, the vessel owner or operator shall comply with the following requirements:

    (1) If the vessel is in port, the vessel owner or operator shall repair or replace the EMTU and comply with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section before the vessel leaves port.

    (2) If the vessel is at sea, the vessel owner, operator, or designee shall contact the OLE divisional office in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart by telephone or email at the earliest opportunity during business hours and identify the caller, vessel name, vessel location, and the type of fishing permit(s). The vessel operator shall follow the instructions provided by the OLE divisional office, which could include: Ceasing fishing, stowing fishing gear, returning to port, or submitting periodic position reports at specified intervals by other means. The vessel owner or operator must repair or replace the EMTU and comply with the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section within 30 days or before the vessel leaves port, whichever is sooner.

    (f) Related VMS requirements. Unless specified otherwise in the high seas fishing permit, a vessel owner's and operator's compliance with requirements in part 300, 635, 660, or 665 of this title relating to the installation, carrying, and operation of EMTUs will satisfy the requirements of this section, if the requirements are the same or more restrictive than those in this section and provided that:

    (1) On the high seas, the EMTU is operated continuously and position information is automatically transmitted a minimum of once every hour;

    (2) The EMTU is type-approved by NMFS;

    (3) OLE is authorized to receive and relay transmissions from the EMTU; and

    (4) The requirements of paragraph (d) of this section are complied with. If the EMTU is owned by NMFS, the requirement under paragraph (e) of this section to repair or replace the EMTU will be the responsibility of NMFS, but the vessel owner and operator shall be responsible for ensuring that the EMTU complies with the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section before the vessel leaves port.

    (g) Costs. The vessel owner and operator shall be responsible for all costs associated with the purchase, installation, operation, and maintenance of the EMTU and for all charges levied by vendors as necessary to ensure the transmission of automatic position reports to OLE as required in paragraph (c) of this section. However, if the EMTU is being carried and operated in compliance with the requirements in part 300, 635, 660, or 665 of this title relating to the installation, carrying, and operation of EMTUs, the vessel owner and operator shall not be responsible for any costs that are the responsibility of NMFS under those regulations.

    (h) Tampering. The vessel owner and operator shall ensure that the EMTU is not tampered with, disabled, destroyed, damaged or operated improperly, and that its operation is not impeded or interfered with.

    (i) Inspection. The vessel owner and operator shall make the EMTU, including its antenna, connectors and antenna cable, available for inspection by authorized officers or by officers conducting boarding and inspection under a scheme adopted by an RFMO of which the United States is a member.

    (j) Access to data. As required under fishery-specific regulations in other parts of this title, the vessel owner and operator shall make the vessel's position data, obtained from the EMTU or other means, available to authorized officers and to any inspector conducting a high seas boarding and inspection pursuant to a scheme adopted by an RFMO of which the United States is a member.

    (k) Communication devices. In cases of EMTU failure as specified under paragraph (e) of this section, and to facilitate communication with management and enforcement authorities regarding the functioning of the EMTU and other purposes, the vessel operator shall, while the vessel is at sea, carry on board and continuously monitor a two-way communication device, in addition to the EMTU, that is capable of real-time communication with the OLE divisional office in, or nearest, the Region issuing the permit under this subpart.

    § 300.338 Observers.

    (a) Where observer coverage is not otherwise required by other regulations or relevant RFMO conservation and management measures, NMFS may select for at-sea observer coverage any vessel that has been issued a high seas fishing permit. A vessel so selected by NMFS must carry an observer when directed to do so.

    (b) NMFS will contact a vessel owner, in writing, when his or her vessel is selected for observer coverage under this section.

    (c) A vessel shall not fish on the high seas without taking an observer if NMFS contacted the vessel owner under paragraph (b) of this section, or if so required as a condition of a permit issued under this subpart or pursuant to other legal authorities, unless the requirement to carry an observer has been waived under paragraph (d) of this section.

    (d) The vessel owner that NMFS contacts under paragraph (b) of this section must notify NMFS of his or her next fishing trip that may take place on the high seas before commencing the fishing trip. NMFS will specify the notification procedures and information requirements, such as expected gear deployment, trip duration and fishing area, in its selection letter. Once notified of a trip by the vessel owner, NMFS will assign an observer for that trip or notify the vessel owner that coverage pursuant to this subpart is not required, given the existing requirement for observer coverage under other legal authorities.

    (e) The owner, operator, and crew of a vessel on which a NMFS-approved observer is assigned must comply with safety regulations at §§ 600.725 and 600.746 of this title and—

    (1) Facilitate the safe embarkation and debarkation of the observer.

    (2) Provide the observer with accommodations, food, and amenities that are equivalent of those provided to vessel officers.

    (3) Allow the observer access to all areas of the vessel necessary to conduct observer duties.

    (4) Allow the observer free and unobstructed access to the vessel's bridge, working decks, holding bins, weight scales, holds, and any other space used to hold, process, weigh, or store fish.

    (5) Allow the observer access to EMTUs, communications equipment, and navigation equipment to verify operation, obtain data, and use the communication capabilities of the units for official purposes.

    (6) Allow the observer to inspect and copy the vessel's log, communications logs, and any records associated with the catch and disposition of fish for that trip.

    (7) Provide accurate vessel locations by latitude and longitude upon request by the observer.

    (8) Provide access to sea turtle, marine mammal, sea bird, or other specimens as requested by the observer.

    (9) Notify the observer in a timely fashion when commercial fishing activity is to begin and end.

    (f) The permit holder, vessel operator, and crew must cooperate with the observer in the performance of the observer's duties.

    (g) The permit holder, vessel operator, and crew must comply with other terms and conditions to ensure the effective deployment and use of observers that the Regional Administrator or Office Director imposes by written notice.

    § 300.339 Transshipment on the high seas.

    (a) In addition to any other applicable restrictions on transshipment, including those under parts 300 and 635 of this title, the following requirements apply to transshipments, when authorized, taking place on the high seas:

    (1) The owner or operator of a U.S. vessel receiving or offloading fish on the high seas shall provide a notice by fax or email to the Regional Administrator or the Office Director at least 36 hours prior to any intended transshipment on the high seas with the following information: the vessels offloading and receiving the transshipment (names, official numbers, and vessel types); the location (latitude and longitude to the nearest tenth of a degree) of transshipment; date and time that transshipment is expected to occur; and species, processed state, and quantities (in metric tons) expected to be transshipped. If another requirement for prior notice applies, the more restrictive requirement (i.e., a requirement for greater advance notice and/or more specific information regarding vessels, location etc.) must be followed.

    (2) U.S. high seas fishing vessels shall report transshipments on the high seas to the Regional Administrator or Office Director within 15 calendar days after the vessel first enters into port, using the form obtained from the Regional Administrator or Office Director. If there are applicable transshipment reporting requirements in other parts of this title, the more restrictive requirement (e.g., a reporting requirement of fewer than 15 calendar days) must be followed.

    (b) [Reserved]

    § 300.340 Prohibitions.

    In addition to the prohibitions in § 300.4, it is unlawful for any person to:

    (a) Use a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas in contravention of international conservation and management measures.

    (b) Fish on the high seas unless the vessel has been issued, and has on board, a valid permit issued under § 300.333(d).

    (c) Fish on the high seas unless the vessel has been issued, and has on board, valid permits related to the authorized fisheries noted on the high seas fishing permit, as required under § 300.334(b).

    (d) Operate a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas that is not marked in accordance with § 300.336.

    (e) With respect to the EMTU,

    (1) Fail to install, activate, or continuously operate a properly functioning and type-approved EMTU as required in § 300.337;

    (2) Power-down or power-up the EMTU without following the procedures required in § 300.337;

    (3) In the event of EMTU failure or interruption, fail to repair or replace an EMTU, fail to notify the appropriate OLE divisional office and follow the instructions provided, or otherwise fail to act as required in § 300.337;

    (4) Disable, destroy, damage or operate improperly an EMTU installed under § 300.337, attempt to do any of the same, or fail to ensure that its operation is not impeded or interfered with, as provided in § 300.337;

    (5) Fail to make an EMTU installed under § 300.337 or the position data obtained from it available for inspection, as provided in § 300.337; or

    (6) Fail to carry on board and monitor communication devices as required in § 300.337(l);

    (f) With respect to observers,

    (1) Fail to provide to an observer, a NMFS employee, or a designated observer provider, information that has been requested pursuant to § 300.338 or § 600.746 of this title, or fail to allow an observer, a NMFS employee, or a designated observer provider to inspect any item described at § 300.338 or § 600.746 of this title;

    (2) Fish without an observer when the vessel is required to carry an observer pursuant to § 300.338(c);

    (3) Assault, oppose, harass, impede, intimidate, or interfere with an observer;

    (4) Prohibit or bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, interference, or refusal of reasonable assistance, an observer from conducting his or her duties as an observer; or

    (5) Tamper with or destroy samples or equipment.

    (g) Fail to submit a prior notice or a report of a transshipment as provided in § 300.339(b) of this title.

    (h) Fail to comply with reporting requirements as provided in § 300.341.

    § 300.341 Reporting.

    (a) General. The operator of any vessel permitted under this subpart must accurately maintain on board the vessel a complete record of fishing activities, such as catch, effort, and other data and report high seas catch and effort information to NMFS in a manner consistent with the reporting requirements of the authorized fishery(ies) noted on the high seas permit. Reports must include: identification information for vessel and operator; operator signature; crew size; whether an observer is aboard; target species; gear used; dates, times, locations, and conditions under which fishing was conducted; species and amounts of fish retained and discarded; and details of any interactions with sea turtles, marine mammals, or birds.

    (1) The vessel owner and operator are responsible for obtaining and completing the reporting forms from the Regional Administrator or Office Director who issued the permit holder's high seas fishing permit. The completed forms must be submitted to the same Regional Administrator or Office Director or, if directed by NMFS, to a Science Center.

    (2) Reports must be submitted within the deadline provided for in the authorized fishery or within 15 days following the end of a fishing trip, whichever is sooner. Contact information for the Regional Administrators and Science Center Directors can be found on the NMFS Web site.

    (b) [Reserved]

    PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 4. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    5. In § 600.705, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 600.705 Relation to other laws.

    (g) High seas fishing activities. Regulations governing permits and requirements for fishing activities on the high seas are set forth in 50 CFR part 300, subparts A and Q. Any vessel operating on the high seas must obtain a permit issued pursuant to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act.

    6. In § 600.745, revise the first two sentences in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 600.745 Scientific research activity, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activity.

    (a) Scientific research activity. Nothing in this part is intended to inhibit or prevent any scientific research activity conducted by a scientific research vessel. Persons planning to conduct scientific research activities on board a scientific research vessel in the EEZ or on the high seas are encouraged to submit to the appropriate Regional Administrator or Director, 60 days or as soon as practicable prior to its start, a scientific research plan for each scientific activity.* * *

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 7. 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.

    8. In § 660.2, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 660.2 Relation to other laws.

    (c) Fishing activities on the high seas are governed by regulations of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act set forth in 50 CFR part 300, subparts A and Q.

    § 660.708 [Amended]
    9. In § 660.708, remove paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iv) as paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
    PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC 10. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    11. In § 665.1, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 665.1 Purpose and scope.

    (b) General regulations governing fishing by all vessels of the United States and by fishing vessels other than vessels of the United States are contained in 50 CFR parts 300 and 600.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26398 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 130403320-4891-02] RIN 0648-XE245 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction for Gag Grouper AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for gag grouper (gag) in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic gag resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, October 18, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic includes gag and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for gag in the South Atlantic during the 2015 fishing year is 295,459 lb (134,018 kg), gutted weight, 348,642 lb (158,141 kg), round weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(7)(i).

    Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(7)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for gag from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,180 lb (535 kg), round weight, to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 590 lb (268 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the quota is reached or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as implemented by the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 14 to the FMP (79 FR 66316, November 7, 2014). Based on current data, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available gag commercial quota will be reached by October 18, 2015. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for gag to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 590 lb (268 kg), round weight, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 18, 2015. This 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, 590-lb (268-kg), round weight, trip limit will remain in effect until either the commercial sector reaches its quota and the sector closes, or through the end of the current fishing year on December 31, 2015, whichever occurs first.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic gag and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(7) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limit reduction has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the reduced trip limit. The procedures are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the gag resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and would increase the probability that the commercial sector could exceed the quota.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26396 Filed 10-13-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 141021887-5172-02] RIN 0648-XE223 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is correcting a temporary rule that exchanged unused Community Development Quota (CDQ) for CDQ acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves that published on October 5, 2015. The CDQ group that initiated this transfer was incorrect.

    DATES:

    Effective October 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Need for Correction

    NMFS published the exchange of unused CDQ for CDQ ABC reserves on October 5, 2015. The document contained errors by incorrectly stating which CDQ group initiated the transfer. This correction will not affect the fishing operations. These corrections are necessary to provide the correct information on which CDQ group initiated the transfer in order to avoid confusion by fishery participants.

    Correction

    1. In the Federal Register of October 5, 2015, (80 FR 60073) in FR Doc. 2015-25291, on page 60073, column 3, paragraph 2, sentence 1 is corrected to state:

    “The Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation has requested that NMFS exchange 568 mt of flathead sole and 210 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 778 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d).”

    2. In the Federal Register of October 5, 2015, (80 FR 60073) in FR Doc. 2015-25291, on page 60074, columns 1-2, paragraph 1, sentence 3 is corrected to state:

    “This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation in the BSAI.”

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This correction amendment corrects an error identifying the CDQ group that initiated the transfer and does not change operating practices in the fisheries. Corrections should be made as soon as possible to avoid confusion for participants in the fisheries.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26367 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 140918791-4999-02] RIN 0648-XE180 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reapportionment of the 2015 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Halibut Prohibited Species Catch Limits for the Trawl Deep-Water and Shallow-Water Fishery Categories; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is correcting a temporary rule that reapportioned halibut prohibited species catch limits in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) that published on September 11, 2015. The table in the document contained errors.

    DATES:

    Effective October 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Need for Correction

    NMFS published the reapportionment of the 2015 Gulf of Alaska Pacific halibut prohibited species catch limits for the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories on September 11, 2015. The table in the document contained errors in the July 1-September 1 row and the Subtotal January 20-October 1 row. This correction will not affect the fishing operations. These corrections are necessary to provide the correct 2015 halibut PSC apportionments and eliminate potential confusion for participants in the fisheries.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of September 11, 2015, (80 FR 54737) in FR Doc. 2015-22934, on page 54738, Table 16 is corrected and reprinted in its entirety to read as follows:

    Table 16—Final 2015 Apportionment of Pacific Halibut PSC Trawl Limits Between the Trawl Gear Deep-Water Species Fishery and the Shallow-Water Species Fishery Categories [Values are in metric tons] Season Shallow-water Deep-water 1 Total January 20-April 1 135 35 170 April 1-July 1 291 375 666 Subtotal of combined first and second season limit (January 20-July 1) 426 410 836 July 1-September 1 176 352 528 September 1-October 1 132 Any remainder 132 Subtotal January 20-October 1 734 762 1,496 October 1-December 31 2 264 Total 1,760 1 Vessels participating in cooperatives in the Central GOA Rockfish Program will receive 191 mt of the third season (July 1 through September 1) deep-water species fishery halibut PSC apportionment. 2 There is no apportionment between trawl shallow-water and deep-water species fishery categories during the fifth season (October 1 through December 31). Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This correction amendment corrects the unintentional transposition of the 3rd season halibut apportionments between deep-water and shallow water fishery categories in Table 16 and does not change operating practices in the fisheries. Corrections should be made as soon as possible to avoid confusion for participants in the fisheries.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26372 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 200 Friday, October 16, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 27 [DHS-2014-0016] Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Appendix A AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) invites public comment on the Appendix A Chemicals of Interest (COI) list. These comments may be used for potential revisions to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulations.

    DATES:

    A roundtable discussion will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. followed by a listening session from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27, 2015. Written comments must be submitted on or before Monday, November 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The roundtable discussion and public listening session will be held at:

    • The National Training Center, 1310 North Courthouse Road, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201.

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2014-0016. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20528-0610.

    In person: Verbal comments are acceptable in person at the public listening session.

    Registration to Attend and/or to Participate: If you wish to attend the roundtable discussion and public listening session and/or make an oral comment at the listening session, please register at http://www.cvent.com/d/8rqbsg/4W. If you cannot attend in person you may register to participate in a listen-only webinar. Comments will not be accepted during the webinar. Attendees of the webinar may submit written comments using the methods identified in this section. Please note that the morning portion will consist of a technical, roundtable discussion and the afternoon portion will consist of a listening session. There is no fee to register for either session. Same-day registration is permitted but seating will only be on a space-available basis, beginning at 7:30 a.m. We will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to make a comment during the listening session. DHS encourages persons and groups having similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation through a single representative.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jon MacLaren, Rulemaking Section Chief, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0610, Washington, DC 20528-0610, Telephone 703-235-5263. For additional information on the Appendix A meeting, please email [email protected] Individuals with access and functional needs wishing to attend the session and require accommodations should contact Sharmine Jones at [email protected] as soon as possible.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Abbreviations and Terms Used in This Document ASP Alternative Security Program CAS Chemical Abstract Service CFATS Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards CFR Code of Federal Regulations COI Chemicals of Interest CSAT Chemical Security Assessment Tool CVI Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information DHS or Department Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register SSP Site Security Plan STQ Screening Threshold Quantity SVA Security Vulnerability Assessment I. Background

    Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 109-295) authorized the Department to regulate the security of chemical facilities that, in the discretion of the Secretary, may present high levels of security risk. Under the Section 550 authority, on April 9, 2007, DHS issued the CFATS interim final rule, 6 CFR part 27. See 72 FR 17688. Additionally, in November 2007, the Department adopted as Appendix A to the CFATS rule, a final list of over 300 Chemicals of Interest (COI) that pose significant risks to human life or health if released, stolen or diverted, or sabotaged or contaminated. DHS also adopted some additional provisions that clarify how Appendix A is to be applied under CFATS. See 72 FR 65396. Publication of the Appendix A regulations brought the CFATS interim final rule into full effect.

    On December 18, 2014, the President signed into law the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014, (“the Act”) (Pub. L. 113-254 (6 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), which authorizes the CFATS program. The Act supersedes Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295, as amended, under which the CFATS program was originally established in April 2007. The CFATS regulations, 6 CFR part 27, remain in effect. Under CFATS, any chemical facility (other than certain facilities expressly exempted by statute) that possesses any COI at or above the threshold amounts (applicable Screening Threshold Quantity (STQ) or minimum concentration) specified in Appendix A for that COI must complete and submit to DHS through the Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) 1 certain information (the “Top-Screen”).

    1 CSAT is an information technology system primarily designed to collect facility information through specific applications for submitting Top-Screens, Security Vulnerability Assessments (SVAs), Site Security Plans (SSPs), and Alternative Security Programs (ASPs). See 6 CFR 27.105.

    II. Scope of Roundtable Discussion and Listening Session

    DHS is interested in obtaining information and recommendations from the public on Appendix A. Comments and recommendations are welcomed on all aspects of CFATS Appendix A; however, DHS is particularly interested in hearing about the following topics:

    • The possible addition of chemicals to, and/or the deletion or modification of COI currently listed in Appendix A;

    • The applicability and/or modification of any Screening Threshold Quantities (STQ) or minimum concentrations;

    • Concentration and mixtures rules associated with Appendix A, which are described in 6 CFR 27.204;

    • Isotopic variants to include comments on Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers and nomenclature;

    • The classification of COI within different security issues, to include the potential for re-designating certain chemicals now listed solely as release flammable so they are listed solely as toxic or as toxic and flammable; and

    • Criteria for “counting rules” for screening threshold quantities to include clarification on how to determine if a COI is in transportation.

    III. Written Comments A. General

    All interested persons, even those who are unable to attend the roundtable discussion and/or public listening session in-person, may submit written comments, data, or views on how Appendix A of the current CFATS regulations, 6 CFR part 27, might be improved. Please explain the reason for any comments and include other information or authority that supports such comments. Feedback that simply states that a stakeholder feels strongly that DHS should modify the Appendix A COI list will not enable the Department to adequately evaluate the commenter's concern, nor could DHS propose possible changes to address the commenter's feedback. Therefore the Department requests that commenters provide actionable data, including how the proposed change would impact the costs and benefits of CFATS, to allow the Department to fully consider the commenter's comment and recommendation.

    Written comments may be submitted electronically or by mail, as explained previously in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods to submit written comments. Written comments will not be accepted at this public meeting.

    Except as provided below, all comments received, as well as pertinent background documents, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    B. Handling of Confidential, Sensitive and Chemical-Terrorism Vulnerability Information

    Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments in a manner that avoids discussion of trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI), or any other category of sensitive information that should not be disclosed to the general public. If it is not possible to avoid such discussion, however, please specifically identify any confidential or sensitive information contained in the comments with appropriate warning language (e.g., any CVI must be marked and handled in accordance with the requirements of 6 CFR 27.400(f)), and submit them by mail to the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    DHS will not place any identifiable confidential or sensitive comments in the public docket; rather, DHS will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. See e.g., 6 CFR 27.400. See also the DHS CVI Procedural Manual, “Safeguarding Information Designated as CVI,” September 2008, located on the DHS Web site at: www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-chemical-security. DHS will hold any such comments in a separate file to which the public does not have access and place a note in the public docket that DHS has received such materials from the commenter. DHS will provide appropriate access to such comments upon request to individuals who meet the applicable legal requirements for access to such information.

    IV. Roundtable Discussion and Listening Session A. Purpose

    The Department will hold a public roundtable discussion and listening session to solicit the public's views and recommendations on how the current Appendix A COI list might be improved.

    B. Procedures and Participation

    This meeting is open to the public. DHS will use sign-in sheets to voluntarily collect contact information from the attending public and to properly log oral comments received during the two sessions. Providing contact information will be voluntary, and members of the public also may make anonymous oral comments. Seating may be limited, but session organizers will make every effort to accommodate all participants. Please note that members of the public who participate through the listen-only webinar may log in as a guest on the Homeland Security Information Network. This log in does not require your full name or a password. As previously stated, comments will not be accepted through the webinar. If you wish to submit a written comment please submit through the methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. The roundtable discussion is intended for technical experts, who have a scientific, security, regulatory or other background to discuss the proposed topics regarding Appendix A at an expert level. However, individuals who are not technical experts (or who do not meet the other criteria) may still attend and participate in the meeting. The listening session is intended to afford the public an opportunity to provide comments to the Department concerning CFATS and the Appendix A. For the listening session, comments are requested not to exceed four minutes at a time to enable all interested attendees an opportunity to provide comment. Should time permit, commenters who need additional time may be invited to complete their comments. The listening session may adjourn early if all commenters present have had the opportunity to speak prior to the scheduled conclusion of the session. Participants who speak will be asked to provide their name, title, company and stakeholder segment (i.e. chemical producers, chemical storage companies, agricultural supply companies, state and local regulators, chemical critical infrastructure owners and operators, etc.). Notes from the listening session will be posted at http://www.regulations.gov. The public roundtable discussion and listening session also may be recorded to support the note-taking effort.

    DHS will place a transcript of the public meeting in the docket for this rulemaking.

    In addressing these topics, DHS encourages interested parties to provide specific data that documents the costs, burdens, and benefits of the current regulatory approach. Commenters also might address how DHS can best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of Appendix A, and whether there are lower cost alternatives that would to allow the Department to continue to achieve its security goals consistent with the law.

    David M. Wulf, Director for Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26200 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 989 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0069; FV-14-989-2 PR] Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule invites public comments on proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 989, which regulates the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California. The Raisin Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for the local administration of the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of raisins operating within the production area, recommended the amendments that would authorize the Committee to borrow from a commercial lending institution and authorize the establishment of a monetary reserve equal to up to one year's budgeted expenses. Allowing the Committee to utilize these customary business practices would help to improve administration of the order.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geronimo Quinones, Marketing Specialist, or Michelle P. Sharrow, Rulemaking Branch Chief, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 989, as amended (7 CFR part 989), regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

    This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

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

    Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.

    AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment proposals are not unduly complex and the nature of the proposed amendments is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the order. A discussion of the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities is discussed later in the “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” section of this rule.

    The proposed amendments were unanimously recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting held on October 2, 2014. Currently, the order does not allow the Committee to borrow funds from a commercial lending institution or retain unspent handler assessments past the close of a fiscal year. Allowing the Committee to utilize these customary business practices would help to improve administration of the order by providing it with the means for ensuring continuity of operations when its cash flow needs are greater than available handler assessment income.

    Proposal #1—Borrowing From a Commercial Lending Institution

    Section 989.80 of the order, Assessments, authorizes the Committee to collect assessments from handlers to administer the program.

    This proposal would provide the Committee with authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution during times of cash shortages. Since inception of the marketing order, the Committee sometimes has used the order's volume regulation provisions to pool a portion of the annual raisin crop to assure orderly marketing. These pooled raisins, designated by the Committee as reserve raisins, were sold and released to handlers throughout the crop year. In managing the pooled raisins for the best return to growers, the Committee pooled the cash received from the handlers until equity payments were distributed to the growers. The Committee borrowed funds (with interest) from this reserve raisin pool during times of assessment shortages to temporarily cover expenses, generally during the early part of the new crop year.

    Volume regulation has not been in effect under the marketing order since 2010, and the Committee has been returning equity payments to the growers who contributed raisins to the 2009 reserve raisin pool. Therefore, funds from the reserve raisin pool are no longer available for the Committee to use during times of cash shortages. The Committee's proposed amendment to the order would allow it to borrow from a commercial lending institution when no other funding is available. This would assist the Committee in bridging finances from the end of one fiscal year through the first quarter of the new fiscal year before assessments on the new crop are received.

    Additionally, the Committee has received grants from the Foreign Agricultural Service's (FAS) Market Access Program (MAP) since 1995 to conduct market expansion and development activities in various international markets. Under MAP, participants must first use their own resources for activities and request reimbursement from FAS. Sometimes there is a time-lag between submission of reimbursement requests and receipt of payments, which causes budgeting issues. Having authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution would help to ensure continuity of operations when this occurs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 989.80, Assessments, be amended by adding a sentence in paragraph (c) that would provide the Committee with authority to borrow from a commercial lending institution when no other funding is available.

    Proposal #2—Establish a Monetary Reserve Fund Equal to One Year's Budgeted Expenses

    Section 989.81 of the order, Accounting, authorizes the Committee to credit or refund unexpended assessment funds from the crop year back to the handlers from whom it was collected. Currently, the order doesn't allow the Committee to retain handler assessments from prior crop years.

    This proposal would allow the Committee to establish a monetary reserve equal to one year's operational expenses as averaged over the past six years. Reserve funds could be used for specific administrative and overhead expenses such as staff wages, salaries and related benefits, office rent, utilities, postage, insurance, legal expenses, and audit costs; to cover deficits incurred during any period when assessment income is less than expenses; to defray expenses incurred during any period when any or all provisions of the order are suspended; liquidation of the order; and other expenses recommended by the Committee and approved by the Secretary. Reserve funds could not be used for promotional expenses during any crop year prior to the time that assessment income is sufficient to cover such expenses.

    As previously stated in Proposal #1, the Committee borrowed cash from the reserve raisin pool and repaid it with interest when handler assessment cash shortages occurred in the past. This practice helped the Committee to bridge finances from one fiscal crop year to the next until assessment income for the new crop year was received. This option is no longer available.

    For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 989.81, Accounting, be amended to allow the Committee to retain excess assessment funds for the purpose of establishing a monetary reserve equal to one year's budgeted expenses as averaged over the past six years. Such excess funds could only be used for specific administrative and operational expenses.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

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

    Based upon information provided by the Committee, it may be concluded that a majority of producers and approximately 18 handlers of California raisins may be classified as small entities.

    The proposed rule would authorize the Committee to borrow from commercial lending institutions and to establish a monetary reserve fund equal to one year's budgeted expenses. This would help to ensure proper management and funding of the program.

    The Committee reviewed and identified a yearly budget that would be necessary to continue program operations in the absence of a reserve pool. Based on this budget, the Committee believes a monetary reserve of approximately $2 million would be sufficient to continue operations. The anticipated $2 million to be accumulated in a monetary reserve would not be accrued in one crop year. It would be spread over several years, depending on expenses, assessment revenue, and excess handler assessments accrued in each crop year. For example: If excess annual handler assessments amount to $400,000, it would take five years to accrue $2 million. Currently, the average excess handler assessments paid yearly over the last six years has been $861,622. During the time in which the monetary reserve fund would be accumulated, the Committee would seek funding from a commercial lending institution as previously explained in Proposal #1.

    While this action would result in a temporary increase in handler costs, these costs would be uniform on all handlers and proportional to the size of their businesses. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from operation of the order. Additionally, these costs would help to ensure that the Committee has sufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. Such stability is expected to allow the Committee to conduct programs that would benefit all entities, regardless of size. California raisin producers should see an improved business environment and a more sustainable business model because of the improved business efficiency.

    Alternatives were considered to these proposals, including making no changes at this time. However, the Committee believes it would be beneficial to have the means and funds necessary to effectively administer the program.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

    The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California raisin production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the October 2, 2014, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the order, including comments on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    Following analysis of any comments received on the amendments proposed in this rule, AMS will evaluate all available information and determine whether to proceed. If appropriate, a proposed rule and referendum order would be issued, and producers would be provided the opportunity to vote for or against the proposed amendments. Information about the referendum, including dates and voter eligibility requirements, would be published in a future issue of the Federal Register. A final rule would then be issued to effectuate any amendments favored by producers participating in the referendum.

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

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    General Findings

    The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

    1. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

    2. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended regulates the handling of raisins produced by grapes grown in California and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order;

    3. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

    4. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of raisins produced or packed in the production area; and

    5. All handling of raisins produced or packed in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to these proposals. Any comments received on the amendments proposed in this rule will be analyzed, and if AMS determines to proceed based on all the information presented, a producer referendum would be conducted to determine producer support for the proposed amendments. If appropriate, a final rule would then be issued to effectuate the amendments favored by producers participating in the referendum.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

    Raisins, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED BY GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 989 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Revise paragraph (c) of § 989.80 to read as follows:
    § 989.80 Assessments.

    (c) During any crop year or any portion of a crop year for which volume percentages are not effective for a varietal type, all standard raisins of that varietal type acquired by handlers during such period shall be free tonnage for purposes of levying assessments pursuant to this section. The Secretary shall fix the rate of assessment to be paid by all handlers on the basis of a specified rate per ton. At any time during or after a crop year, the Secretary may increase the rate of assessment to obtain sufficient funds to cover any later finding by the Secretary relative to the expenses of the committee. Each handler shall pay such additional assessment to the committee upon demand. In order to provide funds to carry out the functions of the committee, the committee may accept advance payments from any handler to be credited toward such assessments as may be levied pursuant to this section against such handler during the crop year. In the event cash flow needs of the committee are above cash available generated by handler assessments, the committee may borrow from a commercial lending institution. The payment of assessments for the maintenance and functioning of the committee, and for such purposes as the Secretary may pursuant to this subpart determine to be appropriate, may be required under this part throughout the period it is in effect, irrespective of whether particular provisions thereof are suspended or become inoperative.

    3. Revise paragraph (a) of § 989.81 to read as follows:
    § 989.81 Accounting.

    (a) If, at the end of the crop year, the assessments collected are in excess of expenses incurred, such excess shall be accounted for in accordance with one of the following:

    (1) If such excess is not retained in a reserve, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it shall be refunded proportionately to the persons from whom collected in accordance with § 989.80; Provided, That any sum paid by a person in excess of his or her pro rata share of expenses during any crop year may be applied by the committee at the end of such crop year as credit for such person, toward the committee's administrative operations for the following crop year; Provided further, That the committee may credit the excess to any outstanding obligations due the committee from such person.

    (2) The committee may carry over such excess funds into subsequent crop years as a reserve; Provided, That funds already in the reserve do not exceed one crop year's budgeted expenses as averaged over the past six years. In the event that funds exceed one crop year's expenses, funds in excess of one crop year's budgeted expenses shall be distributed in accordance with paragraph (1) above. Such funds may be used:

    (i) To defray essential administrative expenses (i.e., staff wages/salaries and related benefits, office rent, utilities, postage, insurance, legal expenses, audit costs, consulting, Web site operation and maintenance, office supplies, repairs and maintenance, equipment leases, domestic staff travel and committee mileage reimbursement, international committee travel, international staff travel, bank charges, computer software and programming, costs of compliance activities, and other similar essential administrative expenses) exclusive of promotional expenses during any crop year, prior to the time assessment income is sufficient to cover such expenses;

    (ii) To cover deficits incurred during any period when assessment income is less than expenses;

    (iii) To defray expenses incurred during any period when any or all provisions of this part are suspended;

    (iv) To meet any other such expenses recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary; and

    (v) To cover the necessary expenses of liquidation in the event of termination of this part. Upon such termination, any funds not required to defray the necessary expenses of liquidation shall be disposed of in such manner as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate; Provided, That to the extent practicable, such funds shall be returned pro rata to the persons from whom such funds were collected.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Rex Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26378 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1139; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-4] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Los Angeles, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension to the Class D airspace at Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. After reviewing the airspace, the FAA found it necessary to establish Class E surface area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-1139; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1139; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension to the Class D airspace at Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. The Class E surface area airspace would extend from the 3-mile radius of Whiteman Airport to 6.6 miles northwest of the airport for the safety and management of IFR operations.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area AWP CA E4 Whiteman, CA [New] Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA (Lat. 34°15′34″ N., long. 118°24′48″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.1 miles each side of the 304° bearing from the Whiteman Airport, extending from the 3-mile radius of Whiteman Airport to 6.6 miles northwest of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 6, 2015. Mindy Wright, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26097 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 203 [Docket No. FR-5742-N-02] RIN 2502-AJ23 Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Single Family Mortgage Insurance Maximum Time Period for Filing Insurance Claims, Curtailment of Interest and Disallowance of Operating Expenses Incurred Beyond Certain Established Timeframes; Partial Withdrawal AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Partial withdrawal of proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document withdraws part of a proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2015, that proposed to establish a maximum time period within which an FHA-approved mortgagee must file a claim with FHA for insurance benefits, and to revise HUD's policies concerning the curtailment of interest and the disallowance of certain expenses incurred by a mortgagee as a result of the mortgagee's failure to timely initiate foreclosure or timely take such other action that is a prerequisite to submission of a claim for insurance. This withdrawal covers only the portion of the proposed rule that would have established the maximum time period within which an FHA-approved mortgagee must file a claim with FHA for insurance benefits.

    DATES:

    As of October 16, 2015, HUD withdraws the proposed additions of §§ 203.317a and 203.372, and proposed revision to § 203.318, published Monday, July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38410).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivery Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9172, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-1672 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 6, 2015, HUD published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would have added § 203.372, establishing a maximum time period for filing a claim for insurance benefits, and § 203.317a, providing that the contract of insurance would be terminated if a mortgagee failed to file a claim within the maximum time period specified in § 203.372, to 24 CFR part 203. The proposed rule would have also revised § 203.318 to refer to termination of the insurance contract under new § 203.317a. Additionally, the proposed rule would amend § 203.402, and revise the title of § 203.474, related to proposals concerning the curtailment of interest and the disallowance of certain expenses incurred by a mortgagee as a result of the mortgagee's failure to timely initiate foreclosure or timely take such other action that is a prerequisite to submission of a claim for insurance.

    In response to public comments expressing concern over the implementation of the proposed provisions regarding the maximum time period within which an FHA-approved mortgagee must file a claim with FHA for insurance benefits, HUD is withdrawing the proposed additions of §§ 203.317a and 203.372, and proposed revision to § 203.318. HUD will publish in the Federal Register any revised maximum time period for claim filing provisions in a proposed rule and solicit public comment on it.

    List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 203

    Hawaiian Natives, Home improvement, Indians-lands, Loan programs-housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Solar energy.

    Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Rule. For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD withdraws the proposed additions of §§ 203.317a and 203.372, and proposed revision to § 203.318, in 24 CFR part 203.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26379 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0240 FRL-9935-55-Region 9] Approval of Implementation Plans; Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa; 2008 Ozone Standard Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the emission inventory, emission statements, reasonably available control technology corrections and the vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 2008 eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Marginal nonattainment area. We are approving these revisions under the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0240, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Nancy Levin (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: 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. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. 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. For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses revisions to the Arizona SIP concerning the emission inventory, emission statements, reasonably available control technology corrections and the vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements for the Phoenix-Mesa 2008 eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS Marginal nonattainment area. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these revisions in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.

    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 25, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26024 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [GN Docket No. 12-354; Report No. 3029] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for reconsideration; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal Register of October 2, 2015, a document concerning Petitions for Reconsideration in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding. This document corrects the DATES section and replaces “October 13, 2015” with “October 29, 2015” as the correct due date for replies to oppositions.

    DATES:

    Replies to opposition are due on October 29, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Powell, 202-418-1613; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FCC published a document in the Federal Register at 80 FR 59705, October 2, 2015, inadvertently setting October 13, 2015 as the due date for replies to oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration. This correction replaces the incorrect date with the correct date.

    In proposed rule 2015-25001 published at 80 FR 59705, October 2, 2015, make the following correction. On page 59705, in the first column, in the DATES section state that the “replies to the opposition are due on “October 29, 2015,” in lieu of “October 13, 2015.”

    Federal Communications Commission Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26305 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 200 Friday, October 16, 2015 Notices AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors AGENCY:

    United States African Development Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.

    DATES:

    The meeting date is Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting location is 1400 I Street Northwest, Suite #1000 (Main Conference Room), Washington, DC 2005-2246.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Lingham, 202-233-8811.

    Authority:

    Pub. L. 96-533 (22 U.S.C. § 290h).

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Doris Mason Martin, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26387 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Document No. AMS-ST-15-0060] Plant Variety Protection Board; Open Meeting AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a meeting of the Plant Variety Protection Board (Board). The meeting is being held to discuss a variety of topics including, but not limited to, work and outreach plans, subcommittee activities, and proposals for procedure changes. The meeting is open to the public. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting.

    DATES:

    Monday, December 7, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday, December 8, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago Hotel at the Ogden Room, at 151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria Pratt, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), AMS, Science and Technology Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Telephone number (202) 720-1104, fax (202) 260-8976, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a) of the FACA (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), this notice informs the public that the Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) is having a Board meeting within the 15 day requirement of the FACA. The Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.) provides legal protection in the form of intellectual property rights to developers of new varieties of plants, which are reproduced sexually by seed or are tuber-propagated. A certificate of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) is awarded to an owner of a crop variety after an examination shows that it is new, distinct from other varieties, genetically uniform and stable through successive generations. The term of protection is 20 years for most crops and 25 years for trees, shrubs, and vines. The PVPA also provides for a statutory Board (7 U.S.C. 2327). The PVPA Board is composed of 14 individuals who are experts in various areas of development and represent the private or seed industry sector, academia and government. The duties of the Board are to: (1) Advise the Secretary concerning the adoption of rules and regulations to facilitate the proper administration of the FACA; (2) provide advisory counsel to the Secretary on appeals concerning decisions on applications by the PVP office and on requests for emergency public-interest compulsory licenses; and (3) advise the Secretary on any other matters under the Regulations and Rules of Practice and on all questions under Section 44 of the FACA, “Public Interest in Wide Usage” (7 U.S.C. 2404).

    The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the PVPO 2015 achievements, the electronic application system, reports of the outreach and molecular techniques subcommittees, PVP cooperation with other countries, and PVPO 2016 business plan.

    Agenda Items: The agenda will include, welcome and introductions, discussions on program activities that encourage the development of new plant varieties and also address appeals to the Secretary. There will be presentations on 2015 accomplishments, the electronic PVP application system, PVP outreach activities, the use of molecular markers for PVP applications, PVP cooperation with other countries, and the 2016 business plan. The meeting will be open to the public. Those wishing to participate are encouraged to pre-register by November 30, 2015 by contacting Maria Pratt, Program Analyst; Telephone: (202) 720-1104; Email: [email protected]

    Meeting Accommodation: The meeting hotel is ADA compliant, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this public meeting, please notify Maria Pratt at: Email: [email protected] or (202) 720-1104. Determinations for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public review at the Internet Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/PVPO.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26377 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Current Population Survey (CPS) Fertility Supplement AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Karen Woods, U.S. Census Bureau, 7H110F, Washington, DC 20233-8400 at (301) 763-3806.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract

    The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning the Fertility Supplement to be conducted in conjunction with the June 2016 CPS. The Census Bureau sponsors the supplement questions, which were previously collected in June 2014, and have been asked periodically since 1971. Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 141 and 182 authorize the collection of this information on individuals and households. This year, the 2016 Fertility Supplement will include questions on marital status and cohabitation of women at the time of their first birth.

    This survey provides information used mainly by government and private analysts to project future population growth, to analyze child spacing, and to aid policymakers in their decisions affected by changes in family size and composition. Past studies have discovered noticeable changes in the patterns of fertility rates and the timing of the first birth. Potential needs for government assistance, such as aid to families with dependent children, child care, and maternal health care for single parent households, can be estimated using CPS characteristics matched with fertility data.

    II. Method of Collection

    The fertility information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular June CPS interviewing. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0610.

    Form Number: There are no forms. We conduct all interviewing on computers.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 minute.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 500.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: There are no costs to the respondents other than their time to answer the CPS questions.

    Respondents Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 141, 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26308 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Healthcare Technology & Hospital Information Services Trade Mission to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait April 23-28, 2016. AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and organizers of the Saudi-American Healthcare Forum (SAHF) is organizing a Healthcare Technology & Hospital Information Services Trade Mission to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from April 23-28, 2016. The purpose of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms to the rapidly expanding healthcare sectors in these two countries and to assist U.S. companies in pursuing opportunities in this sector.

    The mission is designed for U.S. companies and international hospital groups providing hospital operation and management services, hospital information systems, and eHealth solutions. The mission also will assist U.S. companies already doing business in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to expand their footprint. Target sectors holding high potential for U.S companies include:

    • Hospital operation and management,

    • healthcare training and staffing services,

    • healthcare education, and

    • health information systems and informatics (e.g., electronic health records).

    The mission is timed to take place during the Saudi-American Healthcare Forum (SAHF) on April 25-27, 2016. The SAHF is an exclusive event dedicated to building new relationships, fostering existing partnerships, and exchanging best practices between the United States and the Middle East. The 2015 forum attracted over 1,000 attendees intent on promoting healthcare diplomacy through bilateral and international research, technology development, and education and training. Approximately 50 U.S. companies and organizations attended the event. Additional information about the SAHF can be found here: http://sahf15.com/.

    Supported by American industry participants and the U.S. Embassy, the 2016 SAHF will showcase the ongoing health-related cooperation between the U.S. Government and Saudi healthcare counterparts. The U.S. trade mission participants will be highlighted at the SAHF through speaking roles designed to elevate their companies' visibility as thought leaders in the field of healthcare innovation. Trade mission participants also will have free access to all seminars offered at the SAHF, if they wish to participate. Additionally, through customized meetings organized by the U.S. Commercial Service, trade mission participants will gain access to top level Saudi health decision makers to gain exposure they would not otherwise be able to achieve on their own.

    The mission will help participating U.S. firms and associations/organizations gain market insights, make industry and government contacts, solidify business strategies and advance specific projects with the goal of increasing U.S. healthcare services exports. The trade mission will start in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where participants will receive market briefings from U.S. Commercial Service and industry experts, hold one-on-one business meetings, meet with Saudi government officials and organizations, and participate in networking events. Delegates will be invited to participate in the SAHF. Following the SAHF, trade mission participants will travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and then to Kuwait, where they will have additional opportunities to meet with key contacts and decision makers. Participating firms may also wish to remain in Riyadh, or if the firm decides to send two participants on the mission, one representative can remain in Riyadh, rather than continue to Jeddah, to participate in SAHF seminars. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling on their own, will enhance the companies' abilities to identify opportunities in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

    Schedule Saturday—April 23, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia • Arrive Riyadh and hotel check-in
  • • Welcome reception/ice breaker
  • Sunday—April 24, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia • Welcome and overview of Trade Mission (TM)
  • • Market briefings from the U.S. Commercial Service and industry experts
  • • One-on-one business meetings
  • • Networking reception in Riyadh
  • Monday—April 25, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia • Government meetings
  • • Saudi-American Healthcare Forum (SAHF) speaking engagements for trade mission participants
  • • SAHF opening ceremony & gala dinner
  • Tuesday—April 26, Riyadh & Jeddah • SAHF speaking engagements/TM split
  • • Some TM representatives depart for Jeddah (PM)
  • • Networking reception in Jeddah
  • Wednesday—April 27, Jeddah + Kuwait • One-on-one business meetings Jeddah (AM)
  • • Depart for Kuwait City, Kuwait (PM)
  • • Networking reception in Kuwait
  • Thursday—April 28, Kuwait City, Kuwait • Welcome and breakfast briefings
  • • Government meetings
  • • One-on-one business meetings
  • • Mission ends
  • Web site: Please visit our official mission Web site for more information: https://www.export.gov/trademissions/saudikuwaithealthcare2016.

    Participation Requirements

    All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as Outlined below and will be notified whether they are chosen to participate in the mission. A minimum of 12 and maximum of 15 companies and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the trade mission.

    Fees and Expenses

    After an applicant has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have five (5) business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.

    The participation fee for the trade mission to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is $3,740 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME) and $4,470 for large companies. The fee for each additional representative (large firm or SME or trade association/organization) is $750.

    Exclusions

    The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings, airport transfers during the mission) and air transportation. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government per diem rates for hotel rooms. Business or entry visas may be required for participation in the mission. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.

    Conditions for Participation

    Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including information on their products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation by February 12, 2016, but applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis beginning October 15, 2015 (see timeframe below). If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: request additional information/clarification, take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application, or reject the application.

    Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. company and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content by value. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that, for each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented firm or service provider seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. company and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.

    In addition, each applicant must:

    • Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;

    • Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials; and

    • Certify that it meets the minimum requirements as stated in this announcement. In the case of a trade association/organization, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization can make the above certifications.

    Selection Criteria for Participation

    Targeted mission participants are U.S. manufacturers, services providers, and trade associations/organizations providing or promoting healthcare products/services that have an interest in entering or expanding their business in the Saudi and Kuwaiti markets. The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:

    • Suitability of a firm's or trade association's products or services to these markets;

    • Firm's or trade association/organization's potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission; and

    • Consistency of the firm's or trade association/organization goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.

    Additional factors, such as diversity of company size, type, location, and demographics, may also be considered during the review process. Referrals from political organizations and any documents, including the application, containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.

    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 U.S. Commerce Department trade mission calendar (http://www.export.gov/trademissions/) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, 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 February 12, 2016. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning October 15, 2015 until the maximum of 15 participants is selected. Applications received after February 12, 2016, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LeeAnne Haworth, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pittsburgh, PA, Tel: 412-644-2816, Email: [email protected].

    Frank Spector, Trade Missions Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26008 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-929] Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its Preliminary Rescission of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2014, through August 31, 2014, for Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (Jianglong).1 For these final results, we continue to find that Jianglong's request does not satisfy the regulatory requirements for a new shipper review. Accordingly, we are rescinding the new shipper review for Jianglong.

    1See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014, 80 FR 30438 (May 28, 2015) (Preliminary Rescission).

    DATES:

    Effective date: October 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hermes Pinilla 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) 482-3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the Preliminary Rescission, the Department found that Jianglong is affiliated with Shanghai Carbon International Trade Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Carbon), which, as part of the PRC-wide Entity in the 2012-2013 administrative review, had shipments of subject merchandise to the United States. While conceding its affiliation with Shanghai Carbon, Jianglong did not certify its first U.S. entry or shipment and U.S. sale, as required under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) and (C), respectively. Jianglong also did not request a new shipper review within one year of its first U.S. entry or shipment, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(c).

    We received case and rebuttal briefs with respect to the Preliminary Rescission and, at the request of interested parties, held a hearing on August 5, 2015. We extended the due date for the final results of the review to October 5, 2015.2 We conducted this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214.

    2See memorandum entitled, “Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 02/01/2014-08/31/2014” dated August 6, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010 3 and 3801.10. The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, but the written description of the scope is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4

    3 The scope described in the order refers to the HTSUS subheading 8545.11.0000. We point out that, starting in 2010, imports of small diameter graphite electrodes are classified in the HTSUS under subheading 8545.11.0010 and imports of large diameter graphite electrodes are classified under subheading 8545.11.0020.

    4See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Final Rescission of Jianglong

    As we explain in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we continue to find that, because Jianglong is affiliated with an entity that had prior shipments of subject merchandise for consumption to the United States, and did not request a new shipper review within one year of those shipments, it is ineligible for a new shipper review. First, Jianglong did not certify its first U.S. entry or shipment and U.S. sale, as required under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) and (C), respectively. Second, Jinaglong did not request a new shipper review within one year of reporting its first U.S. entry or shipment, thus failing to satisfy the requirement of 19 CFR 351.214(c). Because Jianglong's new shipper review request does not satisfy these regulatory requirements, we are rescinding the review.5

    5See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this new shipper review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised 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 in the Central Records Unit, 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 Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of the final rescission of the new shipper review of Jianglong, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Jianglong, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Cash deposits will be required for exports of subject merchandise by Jianglong entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date at the ad valorem PRC-wide rate, 159.64 percent.

    Assessment Rates

    Entries of subject merchandise made by Jianglong covered by this new shipper review are within the POR covered by the administrative review initiated on April 3, 2015 (February 1, 2014 through January 31, 2015).6 Because Jianglong's entries are also covered by that administrative review and the POR of the new shipper review is within the POR of the administrative review, we will issue liquidation instructions and assess duties for Jianglong's entries upon completion of the ongoing administrative review. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on entries for Jianglong at the appropriate rate determined in the final results of the administrative review.

    6See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3).

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Issues Addressed in the Final Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Rescission of the New Shipper Review Comment 2: The Bona Fides of the U.S. Sale Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Coal Gas Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-25984 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE250 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel (HMSAS) and Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a Webinar, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Webinar will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, or when business for the day is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit http://www.joinwebinar.com. Enter the Webinar ID: 135-307-211, and your name and email address (required). Once you have joined the webinar, after logging in to the Webinar, dial this TOLL number (631) 992-3221, enter the Attendee phone audio access code 199-048-743, and enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback. System requirements for PC-based attendees: Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile attendees: Required: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting Webinar Apps). You may also send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt or contact him at 503-820-2280 for technical assistance. A listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE., Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The HMSMT and HMSAS will develop recommendations for the North Pacific albacore management strategy evaluation to be conducted by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. Recommendations may include management objectives, harvest control rules, biological reference points, and evaluation criteria. Recommendations will be forwarded to U.S. government representatives to the planned special meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Northern Committee to be held in December 2015.

    The HMSAS Chair and the HMSMT Chair will act as co-chairs and comments from the public during the webinar will be received from attendees at their discretion.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26352 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE237 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT), Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS), and Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. until business for the day is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID, which is 142-916-755, and your name and email address (required). After logging in to the webinar, please: dial this TOLL number +1 (914) 614-3221 (not a toll-free number), enter the Attendee phone audio access code 680-582-119, and then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback.

    (See http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-ntent/uploads/PFMC_Audio_Diagram_GoToMeeting.pdf). System Requirements for PC-based attendees: Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting Webinar Apps).

    You may send an email to [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mike Burner, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2414.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The STT, SAS, and MEW will discuss items on the Pacific Council's November 2016 meeting agenda. Major topics include, but are not limited to: Salmon Methodology Review, Salmon Management Schedule for 2016, Habitat, and 2016 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan and Management Measures. The STT, SAS, and MEW may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled Administrative Matters. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the STT, SAS, and MEW Chairs.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26349 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will meet November 2 and November 3, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, November 2, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel, 820 W. 7th Ave., Juneau/Haines Room, Anchorage, AK 99501.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Monday, November 2, 2015 through Tuesday, November 3, 2015

    The agenda will include: (a) Update on 2015 cooperative research, (b) Discuss elements of 2016 EM Pre-implementation Program, (c) Review budget, (d) Plan for EM Integration Analysis, (e) Discuss other 2016 EM research, and (f) Other business and scheduling. 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 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26354 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE247 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel (AP) and Information and Education AP.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will hold meetings of its Snapper Grouper AP and Information & Education AP in North Charleston, SC.

    DATES:

    The Snapper Grouper AP will meet from 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 2015. The Information and Education AP meeting will be held Thursday, November 5, 2015, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4831 Tanger Outlet Blvd., North Charleston, SC 29418; phone: (877) 227-6963 or (843) 744-4422; fax: (843) 744-4472.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

    Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel Agenda

    1. The AP will receive updates on the status of Amendments under development and recently implemented and the October meeting of the SAFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee

    2. The AP will review and provide recommendations as appropriate on the following Amendments currently under development:

    a. Amendment 37 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (hogfish)

    b. Amendment 25 (blueline tilefish, yellowtail snapper, and black sea bass)

    c. Amendment 36 (Spawning Special Management Zones)

    d. Joint South Atlantic (SA)/Gulf of Mexico (GM) Amendment on South Florida Issues (Yellowtail Snapper Acceptable Biological Catch and Annual Catch Limits & Accountability Measures)

    e. Joint SA/GM Charterboat Electronic Reporting Amendment

    3. Update on Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program proposal for electronic reporting for charter fleet

    4. Update on the October 2015 Council Visioning Workshop

    Information and Education Advisory Panel Agenda

    The Information and Education AP will receive updates on the following and provide recommendations as appropriate:

    1. SAFMC System Management Plan—Outreach Sections

    2. SAFMC Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery—Communication Goal

    3. SAFMC Technical Documents and Public Input Strategies

    4. SAFMC Fishery Citizen Science Initiative

    5. Marine Resource Education Program—South East

    6. 2016 SAFMC Outreach Projects

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26350 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee (Committee) in St. Thomas, USVI.

    DATES AND TIMES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the University of the Virgin Islands—St. Thomas, ACC Building 1st Floor Conference Room, #2 John Brewers Bay, St. Thomas, USVI, 00802.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Snowden, Alternate Designated Federal Official, U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Second Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone 301-713-3070 x 141; Fax 301-713-3281; Email [email protected] or visit the U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee Web site at http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/advisorycommittee.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice.

    The Committee will provide advice on:

    (a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;

    (b) expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;

    (c) identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and

    (d) any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.

    The meeting will be open to public participation with a 30-minute public comment period on November 3, 2015, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and on November 4, 2015, from 2:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee 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 the Designated Federal Official by October 22, 2015 to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after October 22, 2015, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will focus on ongoing committee priorities, including discussions of ICOOS Act Reauthorization, raising IOOS to a national-level program, and increasing engagement with industry. This meeting will also focus specifically on how U.S. IOOS may better address needs of the USVI and better leverage existing partnerships at the local level. The agenda is subject to change. The latest version will be posted at http://www.ioos.gov/advisorycommittee.

    Special Accomodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jessica Snowden, Alternate Designated Federal Official at 301-713-3070 x 141 by October 22, 2015.

    Dated: October 5, 2015. Chris Cartwright, Chief Financial Officer, National Ocean Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26360 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE255 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting (Webinar) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting (Webinar).

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a Webinar meeting of its Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Webinar will be held Monday, November 2, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. The Webinar ID and call-in information will be available on the Council's Web site in advance of the meeting.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss agenda items on the November 2015 Pacific Council meeting agenda. Topics may include the Pacific sardine distribution workshop report, anchovy general status, data-limited stock assessments for CPS, and/or methodology review topic selection.

    Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the CPSAS's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, (503) 820-2280, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26353 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE249 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a webinar that is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The GMT meeting will be held Thursday, November 5, 2015, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar; (2) enter the Webinar ID: 139-525-979, and (3) enter your name and email address (required). After logging in to the webinar, please (1) dial this TOLL number +1 (562) 247-8321 (not a toll-free number); (2) enter the attendee phone audio access code 889-990-126; and (3) then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback. (See the PFMC GoToMeeting Audio Diagram for best practices). Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting WebinarApps).

    You may send an email to [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be provided at the Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the GMT working meeting is to prepare for the November 2015 Pacific Council meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. Public comment will be accommodated if time allows, at the discretion of the GMT Chair. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its November 13-19, 2015 meeting in Garden Grove, CA.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26351 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective 11/15/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addition

    On 9/4/2015 (80 FR 53501-53502), the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C.s 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. sections 8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-644-9620—Gaiter, FREE, Army, Army Tan. Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the U.S. Army. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: NYSARC, Inc., Seneca-Cayuga Counties Chapter, Waterloo, NY. Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division. Distribution: C-List. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26342 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0024] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning Appliances AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with notification requirements for coal and wood burning appliances (OMB No. 3041-0040). In the Federal Register of July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45509), the CPSC published a notice to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. The Commission received no comments. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information, without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2012-0024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:

    Title: Notification Requirements for Coal and Wood Burning Appliances.

    OMB Number: 3041-0040.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of coal and wood burning appliances.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: An estimated five submissions annually.

    Estimated Time per Response: Three hours per submission.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 15 hours (5 submissions × 3 hours).

    General Description of Collection: 16 CFR part 1406, Coal and Wood Burning Appliances—Notification of Performance and Technical Data requires that manufacturers and importers provide consumers with written notification regarding certain technical and performance information related to safety on each coal and wood burning appliance. Manufacturers are also required to provide to the Commission a copy of the notification to consumers and an explanation of all clearance distances contained in the notification. For existing models, all known manufacturers have complied with the requirements. Accordingly, there is no new burden associated with the requirements of 16 CFR part 1406, except in cases where existing models are changed or new models are introduced. Less than five submissions are estimated annually as a result of new stove models coming into the market or new firms entering the market.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26333 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0030] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Testing and Recordkeeping Requirements for Carpets and Rugs AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Standard for the Surface Flammability of Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR part 1630) and the Standard for the Surface Flammability of Small Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR part 1631) previously approved under OMB No. 3041-0017. In the Federal Register of June 25, 2015 (80 FR 45509), the CPSC published a notice to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. The Commission received no comments. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information, without change.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2012-0030.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:

    Title: Safety Standard for the Flammability of Carpets and Rugs and Standard for the Flammability of Small Carpets and Rugs.

    OMB Number: 3041-0017.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of carpets and rugs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 120 firms issue guarantees of compliance under the carpet and rug flammability standards. Based on information obtained from industry, the actual number of tests performed to affirm the guarantees of compliance may vary from one to 200, depending on the number of carpet styles and annual production volume. To estimate a burden, a midpoint of 100 tests per year per firm is used.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.5 hours to conduct each test, and to establish and maintain test records.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 30,000 hours (120 firms × 100 tests × 2.5 hours).

    General Description of Collection: The Standard for the Surface Flammability of Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR part 1630) and the Standard for the Surface Flammability of Small Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR part 1631) establish requirements for testing and recordkeeping for manufacturers and importers who furnish guaranties subject to the carpet and rug flammability standards.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26334 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0098] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness/National Security Education Program, 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/National Security Education Program 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 15, 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 Personnel and Readiness/National Security Education Program, Attn: Dr. Michael Nugent, P.O. Box 12221, Arlington, VA 22209-2221, or call at (703) 696-5673.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: National Language Service Corps; DD Forms 2932, 2933, and 2934; OMB Control Number 0704-0449.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to identify individuals with language and special skills who potentially qualify for employment or service opportunities in the public section during periods of national need or emergency.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 167 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 1,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Annual Responses: 4,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 16.24 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The DD Form 2932, National Language Service Corps (NLSC) Pilot Application, is the initial document used to collect information from members of the public. The NLSC Pilot Application form contains a brief set of screening questions and provides background data on where the applicant learned the foreign language and whether the applicant has used the language professionally. Applicants fill this out for basic information (age, citizenship, Foreign Language), and if they meet eligibility criteria, they proceed to the supplemental documents. Members are required to renew their DD Form 2932 information every four years. Renewing applicants are in addition to those initially applying.

    The supplemental documents are used to determine eligibility for membership in the NLSC. The DD Form 2934, National Language Service Corps (NLSC) Global Language Self-Assessment, provides an overall assessment of the applicant's foreign language ability. The DD Form 2933, National Language Service Corps (NLSC) Pilot Detailed Skills Self-Assessment, is a detailed description of the applicant's skills with respect to specific foreign language tasks. These two supplemental documents are used in conjunction for the certification of language skills for entry into the NLSC and quality assurance of certification.

    The information collected in the application and the supplemental documents is used solely by the NLSC.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26338 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Membership of the Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of board membership.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the appointment of the Department of Defense, Fourth Estate, Performance Review Board (PRB) members, to include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Defense Field Activities, U.S Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the following Defense Agencies: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Health Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Missile Defense Agency, and Pentagon Force Protection Agency. The PRB shall provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service and Senior Professional performance appraisals and make recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: September 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Watson, Assistant Director for Office of the Secretary of Defense Senior Executive Management Office, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense, (703) 693-8373.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives are appointed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense PRB with specific PRB panel assignments being made from this group. Executives listed will serve a one-year renewable term, effective September 12, 2015.

    Office of the Secretary of Defense Authorizing Official—Robert O. Work, Deputy Secretary of Defense Principal Executive Representative—Michael L. Rhodes Chairperson—Bonnie M. Hammersley PRB Panel Members AINSWORTH, THOMAS W ARMSTRONG, JR, JAMES E BEEBE, MATTHEW R BRENNAN, KENNETH M BRUMER, ERIC Y CALLAHAN, TIMOTHY P CARDENAS, MANUEL A CASE, EDWARD J CONDON, CHRISTINE M DIGIOVANNI, FRANK C EDWARDS, ROBERT A GEORGE, SUSAN E HEBERT, LERNES J KOFFSKY, PAUL S KOSAK, CHARLES P LEWIS, ALAN D MCKAY, TERESA A MCKENZIE, DONALD J MITCHELL, PAMELA S MORGAN, ANDREW S MORGAN, NANCY E PACKARD, DOUGLAS W PETERS, PAUL D RICHARDSON, SANDRA V SCHLEIEN, STEVEN L SCHLESS, SCOTT R SHEPHARD, MONICA R SNAVELY-DIXON, MARY M SPJUT, GARY B TIMERMAN, STUART F VANNESS, JAMES G WALSH, JENNIFER C WEATHERINGTON, BRIG GEN MARK E WHITMAN, BRYAN G WORM, JAMES A YOUNG, PATRICIA M Dated: October 9, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26337 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public business meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) public business meeting described below.

    DATES:

    Time and Date of Meeting: 9 a.m.-12:15 p.m., November 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Place: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 352, Washington, DC 20004-2901.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Status: Open.

    Matters to be Considered: This public business meeting will be conducted pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Board's implementing regulations for the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Board's Operating Procedures dated August 2015. The meeting will proceed in accordance with the previously approved business meeting agenda entitled “DNFSB Work Plans and Staffing Plan for Fiscal Year 2016.” The Chairman and the Board Members will provide opening remarks followed by presentations from the Office of the Technical Director (OTD) staff concerning an overview of technical staff work plan activities and crosscutting issues. The Board will then engage in discussions among themselves on crosscutting issues. OTD staff will then provide a presentation on technical staff work related to National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy Environmental Management (EM) programs. The Board is expected to conduct discussions among themselves concerning NNSA and EM program issues and Board staff priorities. The Board will then receive comments from the public followed by Board Member remarks. The Chairman will then provide closing remarks.

    The business meeting agenda is posted on the Board's public Web site. The public is invited to view this business meeting and provide comments. A transcript of the business meeting, along with a DVD video recording, will be made available by the Board for inspection and viewing by the public at the Board's Washington office. The Board specifically reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the course of the business meeting, to recess, reconvene, postpone, or adjourn the meeting, and otherwise exercise its rights under the Atomic Energy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act and the Board's Operating Procedures.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26376 Filed 10-14-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0122] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions—Non-Title IV Revenue Requirements (90/10) 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 December 15, 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-0122. 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 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—Non-Title IV Revenue Requirements (90/10).

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0096.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,360.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 5,040.

    Abstract: As enacted by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 110-315), the regulations in 34 CFR 668.28 provide that a proprietary institution must derive at least 10% of its annual revenue from sources other than Title IV, HEA funds, sanctions for failing to meet this requirement, and otherwise implement the statute by (1) specifying a Net Present Value (NPV) formula used to establish the revenue for institutional loans, (2) providing an administratively easier alternative to the NPV calculation, and (3) describing more fully the non-Title IV eligible programs from which revenue may be counted for 90/10 purposes. The regulations require an institution to disclose in a footnote to its audited financial statements the amounts of Federal and non-Federal revenues, by category, that it used in calculating its 90/10 ratio (see section 487(d) of the HEA). This is a request to extend the information collection that identifies the reporting burden for this regulation.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26343 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0123] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Educational Quality Through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP) Experimental Sites Initiative 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 new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 15, 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-0123. 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 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: Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP) Experimental Sites Initiative.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,500.

    Abstract: The Department of Education (the Department) is requesting this new information collection package to provide for a series of questions that are components of the selection process for a new Federal Student Aid experimental site project. The Educational Quality through Innovative Partnerships (EQUIP) project is being undertaken in order to advance the Department's understanding of how to best increase access to high quality innovative programs in higher education. An invitation to participate and an explanation of this proposed experimental site was published separately in the Federal Register. This experimental site project is designed to explore ways to increase access for low-income students to high-quality innovate programs in higher education through the engagement of institutions of higher education (IHEs) with non-IHE providers and quality assurance entities that can develop new quality assurance processes for student and taxpayer protection. The data and information collected can provide valuable guidance for the Department in determining future policy in these areas.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26344 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12514-074] Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Northern Indiana Public Service Company's application for amendment of the license for the Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 12514-074), on the Tippecanoe River near the city of Monticello in Carroll and White Counties, Indiana. The project does not occupy any federal lands.

    Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed modified definition of abnormal flow conditions, as required by article 405 of the current license (issued October 2, 2007), that would be included in a revised article 403, which defines the operation of the project. Staff concludes that authorizing the amendment, with staff's recommended modification to the definition of abnormal river conditions, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.

    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    For further information, contact Rebecca Martin by telephone at 202-502-6012 or Mark Pawlowski at 202-502-6052.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26384 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9023-5] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 10/05/2015 Through 10/09/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150289, Revised Draft, USAF, GU, Divert Activities and Exercises, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Comment Period Ends: 11/30/2015, Contact: Mark Petersen 808-449-1078. EIS No. 20150290, Final, USCG, MARAD, NY, Port Ambrose Deepwater Port Application, Review Period Ends: 11/30/2015, Contact: Roddy C. Bachman 202-372-1451. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150231, Draft, USACE, CT, PROGRAMMATIC-Long Island Sound Dredged Material Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/16/2015, Contact: Meghan Quinn 978-318-8179. Revision to the FR Notice Published 08/21/2015; Extended Comment Period from 10/05/2015 to 10/16/2015. EIS No. 20150253, Draft, USACE, PR, Caño Martín Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/09/2015, Contact: Jim Suggs 904-232-1018. Revision to the FR Notice Published 09/11/2015; Extending Comment Period from 10/26/2015 to 11/09/2015. Dated: October 13, 2015. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26348 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0763; FRL-9935-84-OSWER] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Hazardous Chemical Reporting: The Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Hazardous Chemical Reporting: The Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II)” (EPA ICR No. 2436.03, OMB Control No. 2050-0206) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2016. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before December 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0763 referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; fax number: (202) 564-2620; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) apply to the owner or operator of any facility that is required to prepare or have available a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations. Under section 311 of EPCRA, these facilities are required to submit MSDS to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the local fire department for each hazardous chemical stored on-site in a quantity greater than the reporting threshold. Alternatively, a list of subject chemicals, grouped by hazard type, may be submitted. Section 312 of EPCRA requires owners and operators of facilities subject to section 311 to annually report the inventories of those chemicals reported under section 311. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to publish two emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms, known as “Tier I” and “Tier II,” for use by these facilities. These forms were first published in October 1987 and amended in July 1990. On July 13, 2012, EPA further revised these forms to add some new data elements that would be useful for local emergency planners and responders. This is the renewal of the information collection request which was previously approved by OMB in ICR No. 2436.02. In ICR 2436.02, EPA estimated that after the initial reporting of the new data elements, which was reporting year 2013, that it would only take 0.25 hours per facility to review the new data elements and revise if necessary. Most of the new data elements were added to page one of the Tier II form, which include contact information for facility emergency coordinator; Tier II information; whether facility is manned or unmanned; if the facility is subject to EPCRA Section 302 or CAA Section 112(r) (Risk Management Program) etc. EPA do not expect these data to change annually. However, we estimated that minimal burden may be incurred for reviewing these data annually and revising the information as necessary.

    Form Numbers: 8700-30, Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Facilities that are required to prepare or have available a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for any hazardous chemicals present at the facility above the reporting thresholds specified in the regulations at 40 CFR part 370. These facilities are required to submit a hazardous chemical inventory form, to the SERC, LEPC and the local fire department with jurisdiction over the facility, by March 1 annually.

    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Mandatory under Section 312 of EPCRA.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 390,000 facility respondents (120,000 manufacturers and 270,000 non-manufacturers) and 3,052 SERCs and LEPCs (total).

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Total Estimated Burden: 97,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

    Total Estimated Cost: $5,675,675 per year. There are no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs expected during this ICR period.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 195,000 hours in the total estimated facility respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to facility incurring minor burden for reviewing and updating previously reported data mainly on page one of the Tier II inventory form.

    Dated: September 16, 2015. Reggie Cheatham, Director, Office of Emergency Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26406 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9935-75] Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8089; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.: D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt. (CAS Number 6381-77-7).

    II. Federal Register Publication Requirement

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of test data submitted pursuant to test rules promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

    III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register document that announces the receipt of data. Upon EPA's completion of its quality assurance review, the test data received will be added to the docket for the TSCA section 4 test rule that required the test data. Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the test data in the docket for the related TSCA section 4 test rule.

    The docket for this Federal Register document and the docket for each related TSCA section 4 test rule is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    IV. Test Data Received

    This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d) for the test data received by EPA. D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt. (CAS Number 6381-77-7).

    1. Chemical Use(s): Antioxidant in food applications for which the vitamin activity of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) is not required. Specifically, the compound is most frequently used to develop and retain the coloring and taste in meat products. It is also used for seafood products, fruit, and vegetable preservation, in beverages, and as a developing agent in photographic applications.

    2. Applicable Test Rule: Chemical testing requirements for second group of high production volume chemicals (HPV2), 40 CFR 799.5087.

    3. Test Data Received: The following listing describes the nature of the test data received. The test data will be added to the docket for the applicable TSCA section 4 test rule and can be found by referencing the docket ID number provided. EPA reviews of test data will be added to the same docket upon completion.

    n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (A4). The docket ID number assigned to this data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 8, 2015. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26394 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9934-87] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022 and the File Symbol or Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 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.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    1. EPA File Symbol: 100-RLTN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0589. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: 3.41% bicyclopyrone & 23.16% bromoxynil octanoate. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed Use: Wheat & barley. Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1017, 100-993, and 100-1103. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0629. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active Ingredient: Fomesafen. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Use: Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; vegetable, legume, Group 6; and berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G except cranberry. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Number: 100-1098. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0822. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Azoxystrobin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Quinoa, grain. Contact: RD.

    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1178, 100-1324 and 100-617. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0788. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Propiconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Quinoa, grain. Contact: RD.

    5. EPA Registration Numbers: 5481-433 and 5481-429. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0769. Applicant: AMVAC Chemical Corporation, 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1200, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Active ingredient: 1-naphthaleneacetic acid ester. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Pomegranate. Contact: RD.

    6. EPA Registration Number: 6836-107. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558. Applicant: Lonza, Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. Active ingredient: Metaldehyde. Product type: Molluscicide. Proposed Use: Wheat; beet, garden; rutabaga; turnip; hop. Contact: RD.

    7. EPA Registration Number: 62719-499, 62719-611. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0879. Applicant: Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. Active ingredient: Penoxsulam. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Stone Fruit Group 12-12, Small Fruit vine Climbing Subgroup 13-O7F, Olive, Pomegranate and Crop Group Conversion for Tree Nut group 14-12. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 8, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26393 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0270] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 15, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0270.

    Title: Section 90.443, Content of Station Records.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 63,375 respondents; 63,375 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. Section 303(j), as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 15,844 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: No cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: Section 90.443(b) requires that each licensee of a station shall maintain records for all stations by providing the dates and pertinent details of any maintenance performed on station equipment, along with the name and address of the service technician who did the work. If all maintenance is performed by the same technician or service company, the name and address need be entered only once in the station records.

    Section 90.443(c) requires that at least one licensee participating in the cost arrangement must maintain cost sharing records.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26304 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    Time and Date:

    October 21, 2015; 10 a.m.

    Place:

    800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

    Status:

    The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second in Closed Session.

    Matters To Be Considered Open Session 1. Docket No. 13-05: Amendments to Regulations Governing Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General Duties 2. Briefing on FMC Information Technology Modernization 3. Briefing on FMC Continuity of Operations Plan 4. Briefing on U.S.-Japan Maritime Discussions Closed Session 1. Service Contracts and Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Service Arrangements—Regulatory Review Contact Person for More Information:

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523 5725.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26474 Filed 10-14-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend, for three years, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the rules and regulations under the Health Breach Notification Rule. This clearance expires on March 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Health Breach Notification Rule, PRA Comments, P-125402” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/healthbreachnotificationpra by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Cora Tung Han, 202-326-2441, Attorney, Privacy & Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act or the Act) into law. The Act included provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. The Act required the FTC to adopt a rule implementing the breach notification requirements applicable to vendors of personal health records, “PHR related entities,” 1 and third party service providers, and the Commission issued a final rule on August 25, 2009. 74 FR 42962.

    1 “PHR related entity” means an entity, other than a HIPAA-covered entity or an entity to the extent that it engages in activities as a business associate of a HIPAA-covered entity, that: (1) Offers products or services through the Web site of a vendor of personal health records; (2) offers products or services through the Web sites of HIPAA-covered entities that offer individuals personal health records; or (3) accesses information in a personal health record or sends information to a personal health record. 16 CFR 318.2(f).

    The Health Breach Notification Rule (Rule), 16 CFR part 318, requires vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities to provide: (1) Notice to consumers whose unsecured personally identifiable health information has been breached; and (2) notice to the Commission. The Rule only applies to electronic health records and does not include recordkeeping requirements. The Rule requires third party service providers (i.e., those companies that provide services such as billing or data storage) to vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities to provide notification to such vendors and PHR related entities following the discovery of a breach. To notify the FTC of a breach, the Commission developed a form, which is posted at www.ftc.gov/healthbreach, for entities subject to the rule to complete and return to the agency.

    These notification requirements are subject to the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Under the PRA, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's rules and regulations under the Health Breach Notification Rule (or Rule), 16 CFR part 318 (OMB Control Number 3084-0150).

    The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. All comments must be received on or before December 15, 2015.

    In the Commission's view, it has maximized the practical utility of the breach notification requirements in the Rule, consistent with the requirements of the Recovery Act. Under the Rule, consumers whose information has been affected by a breach of security receive notice of it “without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days” after discovery of the breach. Among other information, the notices must provide consumers with steps they can take to protect themselves from harm. Moreover, the breach notice requirements encourage entities to safeguard the information of their customers, thereby potentially reducing the incidence of harm.

    The form entities must use to inform the Commission of a security breach requests minimal information, mostly as replies to check boxes; thus, entities do not require extensive time to complete it. For breaches involving the health information of 500 or more individuals, entities must notify the Commission as soon as possible, and in any event no later than ten business days after discovering the breach. Breaches involving the information of fewer than 500 individuals may be reported in an annual submission that includes all breaches within the calendar year that fall within this category. The form serves the Commission by providing the agency with information about breaches occurring in the PHR industry.

    The Commission inputs the information it receives from entities into a database that the Commission updates periodically. The Commission makes certain information about these breaches available to the public. This publicly-available information serves businesses and the public. It provides businesses with information about potential causes of data breaches, which is particularly helpful to those setting up data security procedures. It also provides the public with information about the extent of data breaches. Thus, in the Commission's view, the Rule and form have significant practical utility.

    Pursuant to § 318.5 of the Rule, entities must notify the FTC “according to instructions at the Federal Trade Commission's Web site.” In 2009, the Commission indicated that “[d]ue to security concerns associated with email transmission, the Commission will not accept emailed forms at this time.” 2 The Commission now offers a secure online method for receiving these notices, and instructions are on the form entities should use for notification, which is available on the FTC's Web site. Alternatively entities may continue to print and send the form to a designated FTC official by courier or overnight mail.

    2 74 FR at 42975.

    Burden Estimates

    The PRA burden of the Rule's requirements depends on a variety of factors, including the number of covered firms; the percentage of such firms that will experience a breach requiring further investigation and, if necessary, the sending of breach notices; and the number of consumers notified. The annual hours and cost estimates below likely overstate the burden because, among other things, they assume, though it is not necessarily so, that all breaches subject to the Rule's notification requirements will be required to take all of the steps described below.

    At the time the Rule was issued, insufficient data was available about the incidence of breaches in the PHR industry. Accordingly, staff based its burden estimate on data pertaining to private sector breaches across multiple industries. Staff estimated that there would be 11 breaches per year requiring notification of 232,000 consumers.3

    3 74 FR at 42977.

    As described above, the Rule requires covered entities that have suffered a breach to notify the Commission. Since the Rule has now been in effect for over five years,4 staff is now able to base the burden estimate on the actual notifications received from covered entities, which include the number of consumers notified. Accordingly, staff has used this information to update its burden estimate.

    4 The rule became effective on September 24, 2009. Full compliance was required by February 22, 2010.

    On average, about 2,500 consumers per year received notifications over the years 2010 and 2011. In 2012 and 2013, between 4,000 and 5,000 consumers received notifications each year. In 2014, approximately 17,993 consumers received notifications. In light of this upwards trend, staff bases its current burden estimate on an assumed two breach incidents per year that, together, require the notification of approximately 40,000 consumers. This estimate will likely overstate the burden; however, as consumers increasingly download their information into personal health records,5 staff anticipates that the number of affected consumers will increase.

    5See e.g., http://www.va.gov/bluebutton/.

    Estimated Annual Hours Burden: 3,267.

    As explained in more detail within the next section, FTC staff projects that covered firms will require on average, per breach, 100 hours of employee labor to determine what information has been breached, identify the affected customers, prepare the breach notice, and make the required report to the Commission. Based on an estimated 2 breaches per year, yearly hourly burden would be 200 hours. Additionally, staff expects covered firms will require 3,067 annual hours (1,067 hours of telephone operator time + 2000 hours of information processor time) to process calls they may receive in the event of a data breach. See footnote 8 infra.

    Estimated Annual Labor Costs: $61,764.

    FTC staff projects that covered firms will require on average, per breach, 100 hours of employee labor to determine what information has been breached, identify the affected customers, prepare the breach notice, and make the required report to the Commission, at an estimated cost of $5,732 6 (staff assumes that outside services of a forensic expert will also be required and those services are separately accounted for under “Estimated Annual Non-Labor Costs” below). Based on an estimated 2 breaches per year, the annual employee labor cost burden for affected entities to perform these tasks is $11,464.7

    6 Hourly wages throughout this document are based on mean hourly wages found at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.htm (“Occupational Employment and Wages-May 2014,” U.S. Department of Labor, released March 2015, Table 1 (“National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2014”).

    The breakdown of labor hours and costs is as follows: 50 hours of computer and information systems managerial time at approximately $66 per hour; 12 hours of marketing manager time at $66 per hour; 33 hours of computer programmer time at $40 per hour; and 5 hours of legal staff time at $64 per hour.

    7 Labor hours and costs pertaining to reporting to the Commission are subsumed within this total. Specifically, staff estimates that covered firms will require per breach, on average, 1 hour of employee labor at an approximate cost of $65 to complete the required form. This is composed of 30 minutes of marketing managerial time at $66 per hour, and 30 minutes of legal staff time at $64 per hour, with the hourly rates based on the above-referenced Department of Labor table. See note 6, supra. Thus, based on 2 breaches per year for which notification may be required, the cumulative annual-hours burden for covered entities to complete the notification to the Commission is 2 hours and the annual labor cost is approximately $130.00.

    Additionally, covered entities will incur labor costs associated with processing calls they may receive in the event of a data breach. The rule requires that covered entities that fail to contact 10 or more consumers because of insufficient or out-of-date contact information must provide substitute notice through either a clear and conspicuous posting on their Web site or media notice. Such substitute notice must include a toll-free number for the purpose of allowing a consumer to learn whether or not his/her information was affected by the breach.

    Individuals contacted directly will have already received this information. Staff estimates that no more than 10 percent of affected consumers will utilize the offered toll-free number. Thus, of the 40,000 consumers affected by a breach annually, staff estimates that 4,000 may call the companies over the 90 days they are required to provide such access. Staff additionally projects that 4,000 additional consumers who are not affected by the breach will also call the companies during this period. Staff estimates that processing all 8,000 calls will require an average of 3,067 hours of employee labor at a cost of $50,300.8

    8 This assumes telephone operator time of 8 minutes per call and information processor time of 15 minutes per call. The cost estimate above is arrived at as follows: 1,067 hours of telephone operator time (8 minutes per call × 8,000 calls) at $19 per hour, and 2000 hours of information processor time (15 minutes per call × 8,000 calls) at $15 per hour.

    Accordingly, estimated cumulative annual labor costs, excluding outside forensic services, is $62,000.

    Estimated Annual Capital and other Non-Labor Costs: $49,960.

    Commission staff anticipates that capital and other non-labor costs associated with the Rule will consist of the following:

    1. The services of a forensic expert in investigating the breach;

    2. notification of consumers via email, mail, web posting, or media; and

    3. the cost of setting up a toll-free number, if needed.

    Staff estimates that covered firms (breached entities) will require 30 hours of a forensic expert's time, at a cumulative cost of $3,960 for each breach. This is the product of hourly wages of an information security analyst ($44), tripled to reflect profits and overhead for an outside consultant ($132), and multiplied by 30 hours. Based on the estimate that there will be 2 breaches per year, the annual cost associated with the services of an outside forensic expert is $7,920.

    As explained above, staff estimates that an average of 40,000 consumers per year will receive a breach notification. Given the online relationship between consumers and vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities, most notifications will be made by email and the cost of such notifications will be minimal.9

    9See National Do Not Email Registry, A Report to Congress, June 2004 n.93, available at www.ftc.gov/reports/dneregistry/report.pdf.

    In some cases, however, vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities will need to notify individuals by postal mail, either because these individuals have asked for such notification, or because the email addresses of these individuals are not current or not working. Staff estimates that the cost of a mailed notice is $0.06 for the paper and envelope, and $0.49 for a first class stamp. Assuming that vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities will need to notify by postal mail 10 percent of the 40,000 customers whose information is breached, the estimated cost of this notification will be $2,200 per year.10

    10 As mentioned above, covered entities will also need to notify the Commission either through an online process or via mail. Staff estimates the non-labor costs for this notification to be negligible.

    In addition, vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities sometimes may need to notify consumers by posting a message on their home page, or by providing media notice. Based on a recent study on data breach costs, staff estimates the cost of providing notice via Web site posting to be $0.06 per breached record, and the cost of providing notice via published media to be $0.03 per breached record.11 Applied to the above-stated estimate of 40,000 affected consumers, the estimated total annual cost of Web site notice will be $2,400, and the estimated total annual cost of media notice will be $1,200, yielding an estimated total annual cost for all forms of notice to consumers of $5,800.

    11 Ponemon Institute, 2006 Annual Study: Cost of a Data Breach, Understanding Financial Impact, Customer Turnover, and Preventative Solutions, Table 2. In studies conducted for subsequent years, the Ponemon Institute does not report this level of detail.

    Finally, staff estimates that the cost of providing a toll-free number will depend on the costs associated with T1 lines sufficient to handle the projected call volume and the cost of obtaining a toll-free telephone number.12 Based on industry research, staff projects that affected entities may need two T1 lines at a cost of $9,000 for the 90 day period.13 In addition, staff estimates the cost of obtaining a dedicated toll-free line to be $4,540 per month. Accordingly, staff projects that the cost of obtaining two toll-free lines for 90 days will be $27,240,14 and the total annual cost for providing a toll-free number will be $36,240.

    12 Staff included costs associated with obtaining a T1 line (a specific type of telephone line that can carry more data than traditional telephone lines) in its initial estimate in 2009, but did not include these costs in its most recent estimate based on the low number of consumers notified pursuant to the Rule in 2010 and 2011. Since staff's current estimate includes larger projected call volumes, however, staff has again included these costs. Staff recognizes that this likely overstates the burden because entities may already have these services in place and/or they may not all be necessary depending on how many consumers are affected.

    13 According to industry research, the cost of a single T1 line is $1,500 per month.

    14 Staff estimates a monthly charge of $15 along with an activation charge of $15 for each toll-free line, as well as a per minute charge of $.07. Since staff estimates each breach will require 1067 hours of telephone operator time (see note 10, infra), staff estimates the cost/month of each toll-free line to be $4,540.

    In sum, the total estimate for non-labor costs is $49,960: $7,920 (services of a forensic expert) + $5,800 (costs of notifying consumers) + $36,240 (cost of providing a toll-free number).

    The total estimated PRA annual cost burden is $61,764 (labor costs) + $49,960 (non-labor costs) = approximately $112,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand).

    Request for Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. Write “Health Breach Notification Rule, PRA Comments, P-125402” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, the Commission encourages you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/healthbreachnotificationpra by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Health Breach Notification Rule, PRA Comments, P-125402” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610, (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before December 15, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26362 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland, 20850, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244.

    If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Friday, October 23, 2015. The agenda, roster, and minutes are available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland, 20850. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose

    The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships.

    The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

    II. Agenda

    On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. The subcommittee meeting is open the public. The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at www.webconferences.com/ahrq. The meeting will begin with the AHRQ director presenting an update on current research, programs, and initiatives. Following the Director's update, the agenda will include discussion of AHRQ's work on health information technology (Health IT), a presentation on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), and discussion on the recent IOM report on diagnostic errors. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ Web site at www.AHRQ.gov no later than Friday, October 23, 2015.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26319 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [Docket No. ATSDR-2015-0002] Availability of Draft Toxicological Profile; Set 27 Toxicological Profiles AGENCY:

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the availability of Set 27 Toxicological Profiles for review and comment. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), § 104(i)(3), (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(3)), directs the ATSDR Administrator to prepare Toxicological Profiles of Priority hazardous substances and, as necessary, to revise and publish each updated toxicological profile.

    Comments can include additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of Set 27 substances. Although ATSDR considered key studies for each of these substances during the profile development process, the Federal Register notice solicits any relevant, additional studies, particularly unpublished data. ATSDR will evaluate the quality and relevance of such data or studies for possible inclusion into the profile. ATSDR remains committed to providing a public comment period for this document as a means to best serve public health and our clients.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this draft Toxicological Profile must be received on or before January 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATSDR-2015-0002, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30329. Attn: Docket No. ATSDR-2015-0002.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All relevant comments will be posted without change. Because all public comments regarding ATSDR Toxicological Profiles are available for public inspection, no confidential business information or other confidential information should be submitted in response to this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Delores Grant, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30329. Phone: (800) 232-4636 or 770-488-3351.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (Pub. L. 99-499) amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) by establishing certain responsibilities for ATSDR and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) regarding hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). As part of these responsibilities, the ATSDR Administrator must prepare Toxicological Profiles for substances enumerated on the priority list of hazardous substances. This list identifies 275 hazardous substances which, according to ATSDR and U.S. EPA, pose the most significant potential threat to human health. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30613). In addition, ATSDR has the authority to prepare Toxicological Profiles for substances not found at sites on the National Priorities List, in an effort to “. . . establish and maintain inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances” under CERCLA Section 104(i)(1)(B). ATSDR also prepares Toxicological Profiles in response to requests for consultation under section 104(i)(4), and as otherwise necessary to support the site-specific response actions conducted by ATSDR.

    Each profile will include an examination, a summary, and an interpretation of available toxicological information and epidemiological evaluations. This information and these data identify the levels of significant human exposure for the substance and for the associated health effects. The profiles must also include a determination of whether adequate information on the health effects of each substance is available (or in the process of development) in order to identify levels of significant human exposure. If adequate information is not available, ATSDR, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program (NTP), is required to ensure the initiation of a program of research to provide such information.

    Set 27 Toxicological Profiles Name 1 Polybrominated Biphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) UPDATE. 2 N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET). 3 Toluene Diisocyanates (mixture). Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanates (NEW). 4 Nitrates/Nitrites (NEW). 5 Toluene (UPDATE).

    The Set 27 Toxicological Profiles are available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp and http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ATSDR-2015-0002.

    Donna B. Knutson, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26321 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10003, CMS-10467, CMS-1450(UB-04), CMS-1500(08-05)] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address:

    CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10003 Notice of Denial of Medical Coverage (or Payment) CMS-10467 Evaluation of the Graduate Nurse Education Demonstration Program CMS-1450(UB-04) Medicare Uniform Institutional Provider Bill and Supporting Regulations CMS-1500(08-05) Health Insurance Common Claims Form and Supporting Regulations

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Notice of Denial of Medical Coverage (or Payment); Use: Medicare health plans, including Medicare Advantage plans, cost plans, and Health Care Prepayment Plans, are required to issue the CMS-10003 form when a request for either a medical service or payment is denied in whole or in part. The notice explains why the plan denied the service or payment and informs Medicare enrollees of their appeal rights. The notice is also used, as appropriate, to explain Medicaid appeal rights to full dual eligible individuals enrolled in a Medicare health plan that is also managing the individual's Medicaid benefits. To that end, the revised notice contains bracketed text the plan will insert if the denial notice is being delivered to an enrollee who is a full dual eligible. The text in square brackets “[ ]” reflects the Federal protections for Medicaid managed care enrollees. Since a State may offer additional protections, there is also free-text space for inclusion of any State-specific protections that exceed the Federal protections. Form Number: CMS-10003 (OMB control number: 0938-0829). Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 730; Total Annual Responses: 33,574,293; Total Annual Hours: 5,593,477. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Staci Paige at 410-786-2045. For all other issues call 410-786-1326.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Evaluation of the Graduate Nurse Education Demonstration Program; Use: The Graduate Nurse Education (GNE) Demonstration is mandated under Section 5509 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.). According to Section 5509 of the ACA, the five selected demonstration sites receive “payment for the hospital's reasonable costs for the provision of qualified clinical training to advance practice registered nurses.” Section 5509 of the ACA also states that an evaluation of the graduate nurse education demonstration must be completed no later than October 17, 2017. This evaluation includes analysis of the following: (1) Growth in the number of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) with respect to a specific base year as a result of the demonstration; (2) growth for each of the following specialties: clinical nurse specialist, nurse practitioner, certified nurse anesthetist, certified nurse-midwife; and (3) costs to the Medicare program as result of the demonstration.

    All information collected through the Evaluation of the GNE project will be used to meet the requirements specified under the ACA Section 5509. We will also use the information to determine the overall effectiveness of the GNE project. The process evaluation seeks to understand how the demonstration is implemented overall, how that implementation has changed over time, which aspects of the demonstration have been successful or unsuccessful, and what plans the sites have for the remainder of the implementation and after the demonstration formally ends. The process evaluation will answer both quantitative and qualitative questions. Form Number: CMS-10467 (OMB control number: 0938-1212); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Private sector (Business and other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 104; Total Annual Responses: 104; Total Annual Hours: 802. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Pauline Karikari-Martin at 410-786-1040.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Uniform Institutional Provider Bill and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 424.5; Use: Section 42 CFR 424.5(a)(5) requires providers of services to submit a claim for payment prior to any Medicare reimbursement. Charges billed are coded by revenue codes. The bill specifies diagnoses according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9-CM) code. Inpatient procedures are identified by ICD-9-CM codes, and outpatient procedures are described using the CMS Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS). These are standard systems of identification for all major health insurance claims payers. Submission of information on the CMS-1450 permits Medicare intermediaries to receive consistent data for proper payment. Form Numbers: CMS-1450 (UB-04) (OMB control number: 0938-0997); Frequency: On occasion; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 53,111; Total Annual Responses: 181,909,654; Total Annual Hours: 1,567,455. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Matt Klischer at 410-786-7488.)

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Health Insurance Common Claims Form and Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR part 424, Subpart C; Use: The Form CMS-1500 answers the needs of many health insurers. It is the basic form prescribed by CMS for the Medicare program for claims from physicians and suppliers. The Medicaid State Agencies, CHAMPUS/TriCare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and several private health plans also use it; it is the de facto standard “professional” claim form.

    Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS-1500 and the CMS-1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS-1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS-1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other Federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid). However, as the CMS-1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by beneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS-1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier. Form Number: CMS-1500(08/05), CMS-1490-S (OMB control number: 0938-0999) Frequency: On occasion; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Private sector (Business or other-for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 1,448,346; Total Annual Responses: 988,005,045; Total Annual Hours: 21,418,336. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Shannon Seales at 410-786-4089.)

    Dated: October 13, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26390 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Native Language Preservation and Maintenance Grant Application Template Pilot (Funding Application Submission Tool (F.A.S.T. form))

    OMB No.:

    Description: The proposed F.A.S.T. form is intended to be used by applicants in the Administration for Native Americans' Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance grant competition in FY 2016. The F.A.S.T. form is proposed to be piloted as a consolidated and streamlined pre-formatted electronic application form that is user-friendly and has an interactive interface providing structure and clarity for applicants. The proposed F.A.S.T. form is not intended to replace the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOAs) which will still function as the full text of all funding opportunities for which applications are sought and considered by the Administration for Native Americans.

    The proposed F.A.S.T. form will be used in a pilot capacity in just one Administration for Native Americans' discretionary program areas: Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance. All applicants applying for funding in that program area will be required to use the F.A.S.T. form during the pilot competition proposed for FY16 unless they request and receive approval to submit a paper application. By using the F.A.S.T. form no applicant will be required to provide any information beyond what is already required by the FOA. Additionally, free training and technical assistance will be available to all applicants on use of the F.A.S.T. form.

    ANA intends to use the project proposals submitted via the F.A.S.T. form to make funding decisions for Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance grant awards made in the FY 2016 pilot year. In addition, ANA will solicit feedback from applicants and panel reviewers to obtain feedback on the results, outcomes, and their recommendations regarding the F.A.S.T. form as a user friendly method of applying for funding opportunities. If the pilot is successful in making it easier for applicants to apply, ANA will consider potentially expanding use of the F.A.S.T. form to all Administration for Native Americans' discretionary funding areas in subsequent years.

    Respondents: 40.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    F.A.S.T. form 40 28 .50 14

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 560.

    Additional Information

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26320 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3474] Draft Recommendations for the Permitted Daily Exposures for Two Solvents, Triethylamine and Methylisobutylketone, According to the Maintenance Procedures for the Guidance Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents; International Conference on Harmonisation; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of draft recommendations for a new permitted daily exposure (PDE) for the residual solvent triethylamine and a revised PDE for the residual solvent methylisobutylketone, according to the maintenance procedures for the guidance for industry entitled “Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents.” The draft recommendations were prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The document is intended to recommend acceptable amounts for the listed residual solvents in pharmaceuticals for the safety of the patient.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the draft recommendations before it begins work on the final recommendations, submit either electronic or written comments on the document by December 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3474 for “Draft Recommendations for the Permitted Daily Exposures for Two Solvents, Triethylamine and Methylisobutylketone, According to the Maintenance Procedures for the Guidance Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents; International Conference on Harmonisation; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

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

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft recommendations to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft recommendations may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft recommendations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regarding the guidance: Timothy J. McGovern, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6300, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0477.

    Regarding the ICH: Michelle Limoli, CBER International Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7212, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8377.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: Europe, Japan, and North America. The eight ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Health Canada; and Swissmedic. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).

    The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization.

    In the Federal Register of December 24, 1997 (62 FR 67377), FDA published the ICH guidance for industry entitled “Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents.” The guidance makes recommendations as to what amounts of residual solvents are considered to be toxicologically acceptable for some residual solvents. Upon issuance in 1997, the text and appendix 1 of the guidance contained several tables and a list of solvents categorizing residual solvents by toxicity, classes 1 through 3, with class 1 being the most toxic. The ICH Quality Expert Working Group (EWG) agreed that the PDE could be modified if reliable and more relevant toxicity data were brought to the attention of the group and the modified PDE could result in a revision of the tables and list.

    In 1999, ICH instituted a Q3C maintenance agreement and formed a maintenance EWG (Q3C EWG). The agreement provided for the revisitation of solvent PDEs and allowed for minor changes to the tables and list that include the existing PDEs. The agreement also provided that new solvents and PDEs could be added to the tables and list based on adequate toxicity data. In the Federal Register of February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6542), FDA briefly described the process for proposing future revisions to the PDE. In the same notice, the Agency announced its decision to delink the tables and list from the Q3C guidance and create a stand-alone document entitled “Q3C: Tables and List” to facilitate making changes recommended by ICH.

    In June 2015, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that draft recommendations for a new PDE for the residual solvent triethylamine and a revised PDE for the residual solvent methylisobutylketone should be made available for public comment. The draft recommendations are the product of the Quality Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Quality Expert Working Group.

    The draft recommendations provide guidance on the new PDE for the solvent trimethylamine and the revised PDE for the solvent methylisobutylketone. In addition, the data used to derive the PDEs are summarized. The document is intended to recommend acceptable amounts for the listed residual solvents in pharmaceuticals for the safety of the patient.

    The draft recommendations are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft recommendations for the solvents trimethylamine and methylisobutylketone, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26361 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3403] Clarifying Current Roles and Responsibilities Described in the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology and Developing a Long-Term Strategy for the Regulation of the Products of Biotechnology; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency), along with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing a public meeting, to be held on October 30, 2015, to discuss the memorandum entitled, “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products,” issued by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in July 2015. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the activities described in the July 2015 memorandum; invite oral comments from interested parties; and provide information about how to submit written comments, data, or other information to the docket.

    DATES:

    See section II, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for the date and time of the public meeting, closing dates for advance registration, and information on deadlines for submitting either electronic or written comments to FDA's Division of Dockets Management. Comments may be submitted in writing until November 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    See section II, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3403 for “Clarifying Current Roles and Responsibilities Described in the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology and Developing a Long-Term Strategy for the Regulation of the Products of Biotechnology; Public Meeting.” Comments received will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions about the meeting, to request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the public meeting, to submit the full text or summary of an oral presentation, or for special accommodations due to a disability, contact the Office of Policy, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4830, email: [email protected].

    For questions about the memorandum entitled, “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products,” or related activities described in that memorandum, contact the National Science and Technology Council: Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC 20504, 202-456-4444, online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/contact-emerging-technologies-interagency-policy-coordinating-committee-national-science-and.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In 1986, OSTP issued the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (CF), which outlined a comprehensive Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology products. The CF sought to achieve a balance between regulation adequate to ensure the protection of health and the environment while maintaining sufficient regulatory flexibility to avoid impeding innovation (51 FR 23302; June 26, 1986) (Ref. 1).

    In 1992, OSTP issued an update to the CF that set forth a risk-based, scientifically sound basis for the oversight of activities that introduce biotechnology products into the environment (57 FR 6753; February 27, 1992) (Ref. 2). The update affirmed that Federal oversight should focus on the characteristics of the product, the environment into which it is being introduced, and the intended use of the product, rather than the process by which the product is created.

    On July 2, 2015, the EOP issued a memorandum entitled, “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products,” (the EOP memorandum) directing the primary federal Agencies that have oversight responsibilities for the products of biotechnology—EPA, FDA, and USDA—to update the CF to clarify current roles and responsibilities of the Agencies that regulate the products of biotechnology, develop a long-term strategy to ensure that the Federal biotechnology regulatory system is prepared for the future products of biotechnology, and commission an independent, expert analysis of the future landscape of biotechnology products (Ref. 3). These efforts will build on the regulatory principles described in the CF and the 1992 update to the CF. The EOP memorandum's objectives are to ensure public confidence in the regulatory system and to prevent unnecessary barriers to future innovation and competitiveness by improving the transparency, coordination, predictability, and efficiency of the regulation of biotechnology products while continuing to protect health and the environment.

    The July 2, 2015, EOP memorandum stated that the update to the CF should clarify the current roles and responsibilities of the Agencies that regulate the products of biotechnology by accomplishing the following four objectives:

    1. Clarifying which biotechnology product areas are within the authority and responsibility of each Agency.

    2. Clarifying the roles that each Agency plays for different product areas, particularly for those product areas that fall within the responsibility of multiple agencies, and how those roles relate to each other in the course of a regulatory assessment.

    3. Clarifying a standard mechanism for communication and, as appropriate, coordination among Agencies, while they perform their respective regulatory functions, and for identifying Agency designees responsible for this coordination function.

    4. Clarifying the mechanism and timeline for regularly reviewing, and updating as appropriate, the CF to minimize delays, support innovation, protect health and the environment, and promote the public trust in the regulatory systems for biotechnology products.

    As noted in the EOP memorandum, “biotechnology products” refers to products developed through genetic engineering or the targeted or in vitro manipulation of genetic information of organisms, including plants, animals, and microbes. It also covers some of the products produced by such plants, animals, and microbes or their derived products as determined by existing statutes and regulations. Products such as human drugs and medical devices are not the focus of the activities described in the EOP memorandum.

    In addition, on October 6, 2015, OSTP issued a notice of request for information (RFI) to solicit data and information, including case studies, that can inform the development of the proposed update to the CF and the development of a long-term strategy consistent with the objectives described in the July 2, 2015, EOP memorandum (80 FR 60414). In addition to the RFI, the EOP noted that it will hold three public engagement sessions over the next 12 months (Ref. 4), and that the current update to the CF will undergo public notice and comment before it is finalized. This notice is announcing the first public engagement session.

    The purpose of this first public meeting is to inform the public about the activities described in the EOP memorandum; invite oral, stakeholder comments relevant to those activities; and provide information about how to submit written comments, data, or other information to the docket. At this public meeting, OSTP will provide an overview of the CF and the 1992 update to the CF, and discuss the activities described in the EOP memorandum. EPA, FDA, and USDA will provide an overview of their current approaches to regulating products of biotechnology. The agenda for this public meeting will be posted approximately 5 days before the meeting at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/MeetingsConferencesWorkshops/ucm463783.htm.

    II. How To Participate in the Public Meeting

    OSTP, EPA, FDA, and USDA (collectively referred to as “we” or “us”) are holding the public meeting under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council. The meeting will be held on October 30, 2015, in the White Oak Great Room, at FDA's White Oak Campus, Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503 B&C), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. Due to limited space and time, we encourage all persons who wish to attend the meeting to register early and in advance of the meeting. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Onsite registration will be accepted, as space permits, after all preregistered attendees are seated.

    Those requesting an opportunity to make an oral presentation during the time allotted for public comment at the meeting are asked to submit a request in advance and to provide information about any specific topic or issue to be addressed. There will not be an opportunity to display materials such as slide shows, videos, or other media during the meeting. If time permits, individuals or organizations that did not register in advance may be granted the opportunity to make an oral presentation. We would like to maximize the number of individuals who make a presentation at the meeting and will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation or express their opinions at the meeting.

    We encourage persons and groups who have similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation by a single representative. After reviewing the presentation requests, we will notify each participant before the meeting of the approximate start time of their presentation and of the amount of time allotted for the comment.

    While oral presentations from specific individuals and organizations will be necessarily limited due to time constraints during the public meeting, interested parties may submit electronic or written comments to the docket. All relevant data and documentation should be submitted with the comments to Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3403.

    Table 1 provides information on participation in the public meeting.

    Table 1—Information on Participation in the Public Meeting and on Submitting Comments to the Docket Date Electronic address Address Other information Public meeting October 30, 2015 http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm FDA's White Oak Campus, Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (1503-B&C), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-002 Deadline for registration October 21, 2015 http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm
  • Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3403
  • We encourage you to use electronic registration if possible 1 There is no registration fee for the public meetings. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
    Request to make a public comment October 21, 2015 http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm Requests made on the day of the meeting to make an oral presentation will be granted as time permits. Information on requests to make an oral presentation may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Request special accommodations due to a disability October 21, 2015 Email: [email protected] Office of Policy, Office of the Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4830 Closing date for written comments November 13, 2015 http://www.regulations.gov See ADDRESSES above 1 For questions about registering for the meeting, to register by phone, or to submit a notice of participation by mail, FAX or email, contact: Office of Policy, Office of the Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4830, email: [email protected].
    III. Comments, Transcripts, and Recorded Video

    Information and data submitted voluntarily to us will become part of the administrative record for this activity, and will be accessible to the public at http://www.regulations.gov. The transcript of the proceedings from the public meeting will become part of the administrative record for this activity. Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov and on FDA's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm. It may also be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1035, Rockville, MD 20857. Additionally, we will live webcast and record the public meeting. Once the recorded video is available, it will be accessible on FDA's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm.

    IV. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. 51 FR 23302, June 26, 1986. Available online at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/coordinated_framework.pdf. 2. Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Exercise of Federal Oversight Within Scope of Statutory Authority: Planned Introductions of Biotechnology Products Into the Environment. 57 FR 6753, February 27, 1992. Available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/57_fed_reg_6753__1992.pdf. 3. Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, United States Trade Representative, and Council on Environmental Quality. Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products, July 2, 2015. Available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/modernizing_the_reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf. 4. Executive Office of the President. Improving Transparency and Ensuring Continued Safety in Biotechnology, blog post, July 2, 2015. Available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/improving-transparency-and-ensuring-continued-safety-biotechnology. Dated: October 9, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26311 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-day Comment Request; Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program (NICHD) SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will issue a funding announcement for the Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper selection of facilitators to serve as local health educators, using the Media-Smart Youth curriculum; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To Submit Comments and For Further Information: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Sarah Glavin, Acting Director, Office of Science Policy, Analysis, and Communications, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Dr., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2A28, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-7898, or email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    Proposed Collection: Application for Consideration for the Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program (A Local Health Education Program and Leadership Opportunity): 0925—New, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: Media-Smart Youth: Eat, Think, and Be Active!® is an interactive program designed to teach youth ages 11-13 about how media can affect their health. Developed by the NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the program includes 10 lessons on media analysis, nutrition, and physical activity, plus a final capstone project. The Media-Smart Youth® Leaders Program is designed for teens and adults, ages 15 years and up, who are interested in bringing the Media-Smart Youth program to their community. In return for recruiting youth participants, teaching the 10 lessons, and leading the final project, Media-Smart Youth Leaders will receive leadership experience, community service hours, and recognition from the NICHD. To help Leaders succeed, the NICHD will provide training, ongoing assistance, and a small funding amount for program expenses.

    The purpose of this information collection is to solicit information from applicants about their qualifications that would make them effective Leaders, their reason for wanting to pursue this opportunity, and the details of their proposed program (including, but not limited to, location, community partner(s), and proposed budget). This information will help NICHD staff select the candidates for the program who are most likely to succeed in implementing the full curriculum and teaching youth effective lessons about nutrition, physical activity, and media.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 800.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Type of
  • respondent
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hour
  • Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program Application Form Applicants 300 1 2.5 750 Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program Application Form Advisors 300 1 5/60 25 Media-Smart Youth Leaders Program Application Form Community partners 300 1 5/60 25
    Dated: October 10, 2015. Sarah Glavin, Project Clearance Liaison, NICHD, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26389 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee Call for Committee Membership Nominations SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (Department) has created the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee and is seeking nominations for this committee.

    DATES:

    Nominations are due by 5 p.m. on November 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations must be submitted through the web form on the IPRCC Web site: http://iprcc.nih.gov/about/IPRCC-Nomination.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda Porter, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As specified in Public Law 111-148 (“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) the Committee will: (a) Develop a summary of advances in pain care research supported or conducted by the Federal agencies relevant to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pain and diseases and disorders associated with pain; (b) identify critical gaps in basic and clinical research on the symptoms and causes of pain; (c) make recommendations to ensure that the activities of the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies are free of unnecessary duplication of effort; (d) make recommendations on how best to disseminate information on pain care; and (e) make recommendations on how to expand partnerships between public entities and private entities to expand collaborative, cross-cutting research.

    Membership on the committee will include six (6) non-Federal members from among scientists, physicians, and other health professionals and six (6) non-Federal members of the general public who are representatives of leading research, advocacy, and service organizations for individuals with pain-related conditions. Members will serve overlapping three year terms. It is anticipated that the committee will meet at least once a year.

    The Department strives to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that the views of diverse ethnic and racial groups and people with disabilities are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees, and the Department therefore, encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups. The Department also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the Committee. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.

    The Department is soliciting nominations for two non-federal members from among scientists, physicians, and other health professionals and for one non-federal member of the general public who is a representative of a leading research, advocacy, or service organization for people with pain-related conditions. These candidates will be considered to fill positions opened through completion of current member terms. Nominations are due by 5 p.m. on November 19, 2015, using the IPRCC nomination web form: http://iprcc.nih.gov/about/IPRCC-Nomination.htm.

    Dated: October 8, 2015. Walter J. Koroshetz, Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26408 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Action Under the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines) AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health (NIH), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed changes to the NIH Guidelines.

    SUMMARY:

    The NIH seeks public comment on its proposal to amend the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines) to incorporate the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) regarding human gene transfer clinical research protocols. The NIH proposes amendments to the following: (A) The criteria for selecting protocols for in-depth review and public discussion by the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), (B) the process by which human gene transfer protocols are reviewed and registered with the NIH, and (C) the streamlining of the NIH protocol registration submission requirements under Appendix M-I-A of the NIH Guidelines.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, comments must be submitted in writing by November 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by email at [email protected], by fax at 301-496-9839, or by mail to the Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7985. All written comments received in response to this notice will be available for public inspection at the NIH Office of Science Policy (OSP), 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985, weekdays between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and may be posted to the NIH OSP Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions, or require additional background information about these proposed changes, please contact the NIH by email at [email protected], or telephone at 301-496-9838.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NIH Office of the Director requested that the IOM review whether gene transfer research raises issues of concern that warrant the current level of RAC oversight of individual clinical trials involving gene transfer techniques. The IOM noted that the RAC has served a valuable role, but concluded that the current level of oversight over individual clinical trials is no longer justifiable. In an effort to maximize the benefits of the RAC review process, the IOM recommended that the NIH maintain its protocol submission and safety reporting requirements, but restrict individual gene transfer protocol reviews to exceptional cases that meet specified criteria (full recommendations are listed in the IOM report Oversight and Review of Clinical Gene Transfer Protocols: Assessing the Role of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Oversight-and-Review-of-Clinical-Gene-Transfer-Protocols.aspx)).

    After careful consideration of the IOM's recommendations, the NIH proposes amendments to the NIH Guidelines in the following areas:

    A. Criteria and process for selecting protocols for RAC review. The following criteria (subsequently referred to as the NIH RAC review criteria) are proposed for initiating RAC review of individual human gene transfer protocols (criteria listed in both items 1 and 2 must be met):

    1. An oversight body (an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) or an Institutional Review Board (IRB)) determines that a human gene transfer protocol submitted to it for approval would significantly benefit from RAC review; and

    2. One or more of the criteria below are satisfied:

    a. The protocol uses a new vector, genetic material, or delivery methodology that represents a first-in-human experience, thus presenting an unknown risk.

    b. The protocol relies on preclinical safety data that were obtained using a new preclinical model system of unknown and unconfirmed value.

    c. The proposed vector, gene construct, or method of delivery is associated with possible toxicities that are not widely known and that may render it difficult for oversight bodies to evaluate the protocol rigorously.

    The chair of an oversight body or an authorized oversight body representative may submit a request for RAC review by sending the request to the NIH as part of the submission materials provided by the PI. This request must include the rationale for why the protocol satisfies both items 1 and 2 of the NIH RAC review criteria. The NIH will review the request and notify the requestor of a decision in no more than ten working days.

    1. If the NIH determines that the criteria listed in both 1 and 2 above are satisfied, the NIH Director will convene the RAC.

    2. If the NIH receives a request for RAC review of a protocol that the NIH determines does not meet both of these criteria, the NIH would:

    a. Inform the requestor that RAC review is not warranted, and

    b. offer to provide the requestor with information about previous protocols that have used similar products, the outcome of those studies, if available, and a summary of relevant safety data.

    3. Even if the protocol does not meet the proposed criteria listed in both items 1 and 2 above, the NIH Director, in consultation (if necessary) with appropriate regulatory authorities (e.g., the Office for Human Research Protections, the Food and Drug Administration), can select protocols for review that may present significant scientific, societal, or ethical concerns.

    B. Process by which human gene transfer protocols are registered with the NIH. All human gene transfer protocols subject to Section III-C of the NIH Guidelines will continue to be registered with the NIH. However, the following changes are being proposed:

    1. The Principal Investigator (PI) will continue to be responsible for submitting documentation regarding a proposed human gene transfer protocol to his or her local oversight bodies. The PI will also continue to be responsible for submitting documentation as outlined in Appendix M-I-A to the NIH. As part of the submission to the NIH, the PI shall provide documentation from oversight bodies regarding their assessment of whether RAC review is warranted.

    2. Completion of the protocol registration process:

    a. If no oversight body requests RAC review, the IBC may proceed with its approval process upon receipt of documentation from the NIH indicating that the protocol registration process is complete. No research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in the human gene transfer protocol until the protocol registration process has been completed.

    b. If an oversight body requests review and the NIH agrees that the submission has met the criteria in A above, the protocol will undergo RAC review and public discussion. The IBC may not approve a protocol until the RAC review process has been completed. The IBC may proceed with its approval process upon receipt of documentation from the NIH indicating that the protocol registration process is complete. No research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in the human gene transfer protocol until the protocol registration process has been completed.

    C. Streamlining the submission requirements for protocol registration. Section III-C-1 and Appendix M of the NIH Guidelines specify the requirements for protocol submission, RAC review, and reporting requirements for human gene transfer experiments. In an effort to streamline the protocol submission process, the NIH proposes to reduce the submission requirements as outlined in Appendix M-I-A. Specifically, only a subset of the information listed under the current Appendices M-II through M-V will be required mainly for oversight bodies to determine RAC review eligibility and to support the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System (GeMCRIS®), which facilitates safety reporting and provides access to information about human gene transfer protocols registered with the NIH.

    The proposed changes to the RAC review process, outlined above, will require amendment of multiple portions of the NIH Guidelines.

    Proposed Amendments to the NIH Guidelines

    Throughout the document the following global changes will be made: (i) The NIH OSP will replace the NIH OBA, (ii) the term “RAC review” will be replaced with the term “NIH protocol registration process” as appropriate; (iii) the title for Appendix M-I-B will be changed; and (iv) the requirement for a CV/biosketch of key personnel will be deleted.

    Section I-E is proposed to be amended to include the following new definitions:

    I-E-11. An “oversight body” is an institutional entity (an Institutional Biosafety Committee or an Institutional Review Board) that must review and approve a human gene transfer trial. I-E-12. A “regulatory authority” is a federal entity that by statute has oversight over research involving humans.

    Section III-C-1 currently states:

    Section III-C-1. Experiments Involving the Deliberate Transfer of Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or DNA or RNA Derived From Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, Into One or More Human Research Participants

    Human gene transfer is the deliberate transfer into human research participants of either:

    1. Recombinant nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from recombinant nucleic acid molecules, or

    2. Synthetic nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from synthetic nucleic acid molecules that meet any one of the following criteria:

    a. Contain more than 100 nucleotides; or

    b. Possess biological properties that enable integration into the genome (e.g., cis elements involved in integration); or

    c. Have the potential to replicate in a cell; or

    d. Can be translated or transcribed.

    No research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) until the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements).

    In its evaluation of human gene transfer proposals, the RAC will consider whether a proposed human gene transfer experiment presents characteristics that warrant public RAC review and discussion (See Appendix M-I-B-2). The process of public RAC review and discussion is intended to foster the safe and ethical conduct of human gene transfer experiments. Public review and discussion of a human gene transfer experiment (and access to relevant information) also serves to inform the public about the technical aspects of the proposal, the meaning and significance of the research, and any significant safety, social, and ethical implications of the research.

    Public RAC review and discussion of a human gene transfer experiment may be: (1) Initiated by the NIH Director; or (2) initiated by the NIH OBA Director following a recommendation to NIH OBA by: (a) Three or more RAC members; or (b) a Federal agency other than NIH. After a human gene transfer experiment is reviewed by the RAC at a regularly scheduled meeting, NIH OBA will send a letter, unless NIH OBA determines that there are exceptional circumstances, within 10 working days to the NIH Director, the Principal Investigator, the sponsoring institution, and other DHHS components, as appropriate, summarizing the RAC recommendations.

    For a clinical trial site that is added after the RAC review process, no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) at the clinical trial site until the following documentation has been submitted to NIH OBA: (1) Institutional Biosafety Committee approval (from the clinical trial site); (2) Institutional Review Board approval; (3) Institutional Review Board-approved informed consent document; (4) curriculum vitae of the Principal Investigator(s) (no more than two pages in biographical sketch format); and (5) NIH grant number(s) if applicable.

    In order to maintain public access to information regarding human gene transfer (including protocols that are not publicly reviewed by the RAC), NIH OBA will maintain the documentation described in Appendices M-I through M-V. The information provided in response to Appendix M should not contain any confidential commercial information or trade secrets, enabling all aspects of RAC review to be open to the public.

    Note: For specific directives concerning the use of retroviral vectors for gene delivery, consult Appendix B-V-1, Murine, Retroviral Vectors.

    Section III-C-1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Section III-C-1. Experiments Involving the Deliberate Transfer of Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or DNA or RNA Derived From Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, Into One or More Human Research Participants

    Human gene transfer is the deliberate transfer into human research participants of either:

    1. Recombinant nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from recombinant nucleic acid molecules, or

    2. Synthetic nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from synthetic nucleic acid molecules that meet any one of the following criteria:

    a. Contain more than 100 nucleotides; or

    b. Possess biological properties that enable integration into the genome (e.g., cis elements involved in integration); or

    c. Have the potential to replicate in a cell; or

    d. Can be translated or transcribed.

    No research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) until the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion).

    In its evaluation of human gene transfer protocols, the NIH will make a determination, following a request from one or more oversight bodies, whether a proposed human gene transfer experiment has one or more of the characteristics that warrant public RAC review and discussion (See Appendix M-1-B-1). The process of public RAC review and discussion is intended to foster the safe and ethical conduct of human gene transfer experiments. Public review and discussion of a human gene transfer experiment (and access to relevant information) also serves to inform the public about the technical aspects of the proposal, the meaning and significance of the research, and any significant safety, social, and ethical implications of the research.

    Public RAC review and discussion of a human gene transfer experiment may be initiated in two exceptional circumstances: (1) The NIH will determine, following a request for RAC public review from an oversight body, whether the protocol has one or more of the following characteristics: (i) The protocol uses a new vector, genetic material, or delivery methodology that represents a first-in-human experience, thus presenting an unknown risk; (ii) the protocol relies on preclinical safety data that were obtained using a new preclinical model system of unknown and unconfirmed value; or (iii) the proposed vector, gene construct, or method of delivery is associated with possible toxicities that are not widely known and that may render it difficult for oversight bodies to evaluate the protocol rigorously. If an oversight body requests public RAC review, but the protocol does not have one or more of the above characteristics (listed in i, ii, or iii), then the NIH will inform the requesting oversight body that public RAC review is not warranted. (2) Public RAC review and discussion of protocols not requested for review by an oversight body may be initiated by the NIH Director if: (a) The protocol has one or more of the three characteristics listed above (i, ii, or iii) and public RAC review and discussion would provide a clear and obvious benefit to the scientific community or the public; or (b) the protocol otherwise raises significant scientific, societal, or ethical concerns.

    For a clinical trial site that is added after completion of the NIH protocol registration process, no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) at the clinical trial site until the following documentation has been submitted to the NIH OSP: (1) Institutional Biosafety Committee approval (from the clinical trial site); (2) Institutional Review Board approval; (3) Institutional Review Board-approved informed consent document; and (4) the NIH grant number(s) if applicable.

    In order to maintain public access to information regarding human gene transfer (including protocols that are not publicly reviewed by the RAC), the NIH OSP will maintain the documentation described in Appendices M-I through M-II. The information provided in response to Appendix M should not contain any confidential commercial or financial information or trade secrets, enabling all aspects of RAC review to be open to the public.

    Note: For specific directives concerning the use of retroviral vectors for gene delivery, consult Appendix B-V-1, Murine, Retroviral Vectors.

    Section IV-B-1-f currently states:

    Section IV-B-1-f. Ensure that when the institution participates in or sponsors recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research involving human subjects: (i) The Institutional Biosafety Committee has adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary), (ii) all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator; and (iii) no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements), Institutional Biosafety Committee approval has been obtained, Institutional Review Board approval has been obtained, and all applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained. Institutional Biosafety Committee approval must be obtained from each institution at which recombinant or synthetic nucleic acids will be administered to human subjects (as opposed to each institution involved in the production of vectors for human application and each institution at which there is ex vivo transduction of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule material into target cells for human application).

    Section IV-B-1-f is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Section IV-B-1-f. Ensure that when the institution participates in or sponsors recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research involving human subjects: (i) The Institutional Biosafety Committee has adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary), (ii) all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator; and (iii) no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion), Institutional Biosafety Committee approval has been obtained, Institutional Review Board approval has been obtained, and all applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained. Institutional Biosafety Committee approval must be obtained from the clinical trial site.

    None of the other sub-sections under Section IV-B-1. General Information are proposed to be amended.

    Section IV-B-2-a-(1) currently states:

    Section IV-B-2-a-(1). The Institutional Biosafety Committee must be comprised of no fewer than five members so selected that they collectively have experience and expertise in recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule technology and the capability to assess the safety of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research and to identify any potential risk to public health or the environment. At least two members shall not be affiliated with the institution (apart from their membership on the Institutional Biosafety Committee) and who represent the interest of the surrounding community with respect to health and protection of the environment (e.g., officials of state or local public health or environmental protection agencies, members of other local governmental bodies, or persons active in medical, occupational health, or environmental concerns in the community). The Institutional Biosafety Committee shall include at least one individual with expertise in plant, plant pathogen, or plant pest containment principles when experiments utilizing Appendix P, Physical and Biological Containment for Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecule Research Involving Plants, require prior approval by the Institutional Biosafety Committee. The Institutional Biosafety Committee shall include at least one scientist with expertise in animal containment principles when experiments utilizing Appendix Q, Physical and Biological Containment for Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecule Research Involving Animals, require Institutional Biosafety Committee prior approval. When the institution conducts recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research at BL3, BL4, or Large Scale (greater than 10 liters), a Biological Safety Officer is mandatory and shall be a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (see Section IV-B-3, Biological Safety Officer). When the institution participates in or sponsors recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research involving human research participants, the institution must ensure that: (i) The Institutional Biosafety Committee has adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary); (ii) all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator; (iii) no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements); and (iv) final IBC approval is granted only after the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements). Institutional Biosafety Committee approval must be obtained from the institution at which recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule material will be administered to human research participants (rather than the site involved in manufacturing gene transfer products).

    Note: Individuals, corporations, and institutions not otherwise covered by the NIH Guidelines, are encouraged to adhere to the standards and procedures set forth in Sections I through IV (see Section IV-D, Voluntary Compliance. The policy and procedures for establishing an Institutional Biosafety Committee under Voluntary Compliance, are specified in Section IV-D-2, Institutional Biosafety Committee Approval).

    Section IV-B-2-a-(1) is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Section IV-B-2-a-(1). The Institutional Biosafety Committee must be comprised of no fewer than five members so selected that they collectively have experience and expertise in recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule technology and the capability to assess the safety of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research and to identify any potential risk to public health or the environment. At least two members shall not be affiliated with the institution (apart from their membership on the Institutional Biosafety Committee) and who represent the interest of the surrounding community with respect to health and protection of the environment (e.g., officials of state or local public health or environmental protection agencies, members of other local governmental bodies, or persons active in medical, occupational health, or environmental concerns in the community). The Institutional Biosafety Committee shall include at least one individual with expertise in plant, plant pathogen, or plant pest containment principles when experiments utilizing Appendix P, Physical and Biological Containment for Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecule Research Involving Plants, require prior approval by the Institutional Biosafety Committee. The Institutional Biosafety Committee shall include at least one scientist with expertise in animal containment principles when experiments utilizing Appendix Q, Physical and Biological Containment for Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecule Research Involving Animals, require Institutional Biosafety Committee prior approval. When the institution conducts recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research at BL3, BL4, or Large Scale (greater than 10 liters), a Biological Safety Officer is mandatory and shall be a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (see Section IV-B-3, Biological Safety Officer). When the institution participates in or sponsors recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research involving human research participants, the institution must ensure that: (i) The Institutional Biosafety Committee has adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary); (ii) all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator; (iii) no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion); and (iv) final IBC approval is granted only after the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion). Institutional Biosafety Committee approval must be obtained from the clinical trial site.

    Note: Individuals, corporations, and institutions not otherwise covered by the NIH Guidelines, are encouraged to adhere to the standards and procedures set forth in Sections I through IV (see Section IV-D, Voluntary Compliance. The policy and procedures for establishing an Institutional Biosafety Committee under Voluntary Compliance, are specified in Section IV-D-2, Institutional Biosafety Committee Approval).

    None of the other sub-sections under Section IV-B2-a. Membership and Procedures of the IBC are proposed to be amended.

    Section IV-B-2-b-(1) currently states:

    Section IV-B-2-b-(1). Reviewing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research conducted at or sponsored by the institution for compliance with the NIH Guidelines as specified in Section III, Experiments Covered by the NIH Guidelines, and approving those research projects that are found to conform with the NIH Guidelines. This review shall include: (i) Independent assessment of the containment levels required by the NIH Guidelines for the proposed research; (ii) assessment of the facilities, procedures, practices, and training and expertise of personnel involved in recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research; (iii) ensuring that all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator; (iv) ensuring that no research participant is enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements), Institutional Biosafety Committee approval (from the clinical trial site) has been obtained, Institutional Review Board approval has been obtained, and all applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained; (v) for human gene transfer protocols selected for public RAC review and discussion, consideration of the issues raised and recommendations made as a result of this review and consideration of the Principal Investigator's response to the RAC recommendations; (vi) ensuring that final IBC approval is granted only after the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements); and (vii) ensuring compliance with all surveillance, data reporting, and adverse event reporting requirements set forth in the NIH Guidelines.

    Section IV-B-2-b-(1) is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Section IV-B-2-b-(1). Reviewing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research conducted at or sponsored by the institution for compliance with the NIH Guidelines as specified in Section III, Experiments Covered by the NIH Guidelines, and approving those research projects that are found to conform with the NIH Guidelines. This review shall include: (i) Independent assessment of the containment levels required by the NIH Guidelines for the proposed research; (ii) assessment of the facilities, procedures, practices, and training and expertise of personnel involved in recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research; (iii) ensuring that all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator (iv) ensuring that no research participant is enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion), Institutional Biosafety Committee approval (from the clinical trial site) has been obtained, Institutional Review Board approval has been obtained, and all applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained; (v) for human gene transfer protocols selected for public RAC review and discussion, consideration of the issues raised and recommendations made as a result of this review and consideration of the Principal Investigator's response to the RAC recommendations; (vi) ensuring that final IBC approval is granted only after the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion); and (vii) ensuring compliance with all surveillance, data reporting, and adverse event reporting requirements set forth in the NIH Guidelines.

    None of the other sub-sections under Section IV-B-2-b. Functions of the IBC are proposed to be amended.

    Section IV-B-6 currently states:

    Section IV-B-6. Human Gene Therapy Expertise

    When the institution participates in or sponsors recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research involving human subjects, the institution must ensure that: (i) the Institutional Biosafety Committee has adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary) and (ii) all aspects of Appendix M, Points to Consider in the Design and Submission of Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules into One or More Human Subjects (Points to Consider), have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator prior to submission to NIH/OBA.

    Section IV-B-6 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Section IV-B-6. Human Gene Therapy Expertise

    When the institution participates in or sponsors recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research involving human subjects, the institution must ensure that: (i) the Institutional Biosafety Committee has adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary) and (ii) all aspects of Appendix M, Points to Consider in the Design and Submission of Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules into One or More Human Subjects (Points to Consider), have been appropriately addressed by the Principal Investigator prior to its approval.

    Section IV-B-7-b-(6) currently states:

    Section IV-B-7-b-(6). Ensure that all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed prior to submission of a human gene transfer experiment to NIH OBA, and provide a letter signed by the Principal Investigator(s) on institutional letterhead acknowledging that the documentation being submitted to NIH OBA complies with the requirements set forth in Appendix M. No research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements); IBC approval (from the clinical trial site) has been obtained; Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval has been obtained; and all applicable regulatory authorization(s) have been obtained.

    For a clinical trial site that is added after the RAC review process, no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) at the clinical trial site until the following documentation has been submitted to NIH OBA: (1) IBC approval (from the clinical trial site); (2) IRB approval; (3) IRB-approved informed consent document; (4) curriculum vitae of the Principal Investigator(s) (no more than two pages in biographical sketch format); and (5) NIH grant number(s) if applicable.

    Section IV-B-7-b-(6) is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Section IV-B-7-b-(6). Ensure that all aspects of Appendix M have been appropriately addressed prior to submission. No research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) in a human gene transfer experiment until the NIH protocol registration process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion); IBC approval (from the clinical trial site) has been obtained; Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval has been obtained; and all applicable regulatory authorization(s) have been obtained.

    For a clinical trial site that is added after completion of the NIH protocol registration process, no research participant shall be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) at the clinical trial site until the following documentation has been submitted to the NIH OSP: (1) IBC approval (from the clinical trial site); (2) IRB approval; (3) IRB-approved informed consent document; and (4) NIH grant number(s) if applicable.

    To implement this new process, the NIH proposes to amend Appendix M, Points to Consider in the Design and Submission of Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules into One or More Human Research Participants (Points to Consider).

    Appendix M currently states:

    Appendix M applies to research conducted at or sponsored by an institution that receives any support for recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research from NIH. Researchers not covered by the NIH Guidelines are encouraged to use Appendix M (see Section I-C, General Applicability).

    The acceptability of human somatic cell gene transfer has been addressed in several public documents as well as in numerous academic studies. In November 1982, the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research published a report, Splicing Life, which resulted from a two-year process of public deliberation and hearings. Upon release of that report, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee held three days of public hearings with witnesses from a wide range of fields from the biomedical and social sciences to theology, philosophy, and law. In December 1984, the Office of Technology Assessment released a background paper, Human Gene Therapy, which concluded that civic, religious, scientific, and medical groups have all accepted, in principle, the appropriateness of gene transfer of somatic cells in humans for specific genetic diseases. Somatic cell gene transfer is seen as an extension of present methods that might be preferable to other technologies. In light of this public support, RAC is prepared to consider proposals for somatic cell gene transfer.

    RAC will not at present entertain proposals for germ line alterations but will consider proposals involving somatic cell gene transfer. The purpose of somatic cell gene transfer is to treat an individual patient, e.g., by inserting a properly functioning gene into the subject's somatic cells. Germ line alteration involves a specific attempt to introduce genetic changes into the germ (reproductive) cells of an individual, with the aim of changing the set of genes passed on to the individual's offspring.

    The RAC continues to explore the issues raised by the potential of in utero gene transfer clinical research. However, the RAC concludes that, at present, it is premature to undertake any in utero gene transfer clinical trial. Significant additional preclinical and clinical studies addressing vector transduction efficacy, biodistribution, and toxicity are required before a human in utero gene transfer protocol can proceed. In addition, a more thorough understanding of the development of human organ systems, such as the immune and nervous systems, is needed to better define the potential efficacy and risks of human in utero gene transfer. Prerequisites for considering any specific human in utero gene transfer procedure include an understanding of the pathophysiology of the candidate disease and a demonstrable advantage to the in utero approach. Once the above criteria are met, the RAC would be willing to consider well rationalized human in utero gene transfer clinical trials.

    Research proposals involving the deliberate transfer of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from such nucleic acid molecules, into human subjects (human gene transfer) will be considered through a review process involving both NIH/OBA and RAC. Investigators shall submit their relevant information on the proposed human gene transfer experiments to NIH/OBA. Submission of human gene transfer protocols to NIH will be in the format described in Appendix M-I-A, Submission Requirements for Protocol Submission. Submission to NIH shall be for registration purposes and will ensure continued public access to relevant human gene transfer information conducted in compliance with the NIH Guidelines. Investigational New Drug (IND) applications should be submitted to FDA in the format described in 21 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 312, Subpart B, Section 23, IND Content and Format.

    Institutional Biosafety Committee approval must be obtained from each institution at which recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule material will be administered to human subjects (as opposed to each institution involved in the production of vectors for human application and each institution at which there is ex vivo transduction of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule material into target cells for human application).

    Factors that may contribute to public discussion of a human gene transfer experiment by RAC include: (i) New vectors/new gene delivery systems, (ii) new diseases, (iii) unique applications of gene transfer, and (iv) other issues considered to require further public discussion. Among the experiments that may be considered exempt from RAC discussion are those determined not to represent possible risk to human health or the environment. Full, public RAC review and discussion of a human gene transfer experiment may be (1) initiated by the NIH Director; or (2) initiated by the NIH OBA Director following a recommendation to NIH OBA by: (a) Three or more RAC members, or (b) a Federal agency other than NIH. An individual human gene transfer experiment that is recommended for full RAC review should represent novel characteristics deserving of public discussion. If it is determined that an experiment will undergo full RAC discussion, NIH/OBA will immediately notify the Principal Investigator. RAC members may forward individual requests for additional information relevant to a specific protocol through NIH/OBA to the Principal Investigator. In making a determination whether an experiment is novel, and thus deserving of full RAC discussion, reviewers will examine the scientific rationale, scientific context (relative to other proposals reviewed by RAC), whether the preliminary in vitro and in vivo safety data were obtained in appropriate models and are sufficient, and whether questions related to relevant social and ethical issues have been resolved. RAC recommendations on a specific human gene transfer experiment shall be forwarded to the NIH Director, the Principal Investigator, the sponsoring institution, and other DHHS components, as appropriate. Relevant documentation will be included in the material for the RAC meeting at which the experiment is scheduled to be discussed. RAC meetings will be open to the public except where trade secrets and proprietary information are reviewed (see Section IV-D-5, Protection of Proprietary Data—Voluntary Compliance). RAC prefers that information provided in response to Appendix M contain no proprietary data or trade secrets, enabling all aspects of the review to be open to the public.

    Note: Any application submitted to NIH/OBA shall not be designated as `confidential' in its entirety. In the event that a sponsor determines that specific responses to one or more of the items described in Appendix M should be considered as proprietary or trade secret, each item should be clearly identified as such. The cover letter (attached to the submitted material) shall: (1) Clearly indicate that select portions of the application contain information considered as proprietary or trade secret, (2) a brief explanation as to the reason that each of these items is determined proprietary or trade secret.

    Public discussion of human gene transfer experiments (and access to relevant information) shall serve to inform the public about the technical aspects of the proposals, meaning and significance of the research, and significant safety, social, and ethical implications of the research. RAC discussion is intended to ensure safe and ethical conduct of gene transfer experiments and facilitate public understanding of this novel area of biomedical research.

    In its evaluation of human gene transfer proposals, RAC will consider whether the design of such experiments offers adequate assurance that their consequences will not go beyond their purpose, which is the same as the traditional purpose of clinical investigation, namely, to protect the health and well being of human subjects being treated while at the same time gathering generalizable knowledge. Two possible undesirable consequences of the transfer of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules would be unintentional: (i) Vertical transmission of genetic changes from an individual to his/her offspring, or (ii) horizontal transmission of viral infection to other persons with whom the individual comes in contact. Accordingly, Appendices M-I through M-V request information that will enable RAC and NIH/OBA to assess the possibility that the proposed experiment(s) will inadvertently affect reproductive cells or lead to infection of other people (e.g., medical personnel or relatives).

    Appendix M will be considered for revisions as experience in evaluating proposals accumulates and as new scientific developments occur. This review will be carried out periodically as needed.

    Appendix M is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Appendix M applies to research conducted at or sponsored by an institution that receives any support for recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research from NIH. Researchers not covered by the NIH Guidelines are encouraged to use Appendix M (see Section I-C, General Applicability).

    The acceptability of human somatic cell gene transfer has been addressed in several public documents as well as in numerous academic studies. In November 1982, the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research published a report, Splicing Life, which resulted from a two-year process of public deliberation and hearings. Upon release of that report, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee held three days of public hearings with witnesses from a wide range of fields from the biomedical and social sciences to theology, philosophy, and law. In December 1984, the Office of Technology Assessment released a background paper, Human Gene Therapy, which concluded that civic, religious, scientific, and medical groups have all accepted, in principle, the appropriateness of gene transfer of somatic cells in humans for specific genetic diseases. Somatic cell gene transfer is seen as an extension of present methods that might be preferable to other technologies. In light of this public support, the NIH is prepared to consider proposals for somatic cell gene transfer.

    The NIH will not at present entertain proposals for germ line alterations but will consider proposals involving somatic cell gene transfer. The purpose of somatic cell gene transfer is to treat an individual patient, e.g., by inserting a properly functioning gene into the subject's somatic cells. Germ line alteration involves a specific attempt to introduce genetic changes into the germ (reproductive) cells of an individual, with the aim of changing the set of genes passed on to the individual's offspring.

    The NIH continues to explore the issues raised by the potential of in utero gene transfer clinical research. However, the NIH concludes that, at present, it is premature to undertake any in utero gene transfer clinical trial. Significant additional preclinical and clinical studies addressing vector transduction efficacy, biodistribution, and toxicity are required before a human in utero gene transfer protocol can proceed. In addition, a more thorough understanding of the development of human organ systems, such as the immune and nervous systems, is needed to better define the potential efficacy and risks of human in utero gene transfer. Prerequisites for considering any specific human in utero gene transfer procedure include an understanding of the pathophysiology of the candidate disease and a demonstrable advantage to the in utero approach. Once the above criteria are met, the NIH would be willing to consider well rationalized human in utero gene transfer clinical trials.

    Research proposals involving the deliberate transfer of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, or DNA or RNA derived from such nucleic acid molecules, into one or more human subjects (human gene transfer) will be considered through a registration process involving the NIH, oversight bodies, and regulatory authorities, when appropriate. Investigators shall submit the relevant information on the proposed human gene transfer experiment to the oversight bodies and then to the NIH. The format of the submission is described in Appendix M-I-A, Requirements for Protocol Submission. Submission to the NIH OSP shall be for registration purposes and will ensure continued public access to relevant human gene transfer information conducted in compliance with the NIH Guidelines.

    Public RAC review and discussion of a human gene transfer experiment may be initiated in two exceptional circumstances: (1) The NIH will determine, following a request for RAC review from an oversight body, whether the protocol has one or more of the following characteristics: i) The protocol uses a new vector, genetic material, or delivery methodology that represents a first-in-human experience, thus presenting an unknown risk; ii) the protocol relies on preclinical safety data that were obtained using a new preclinical model system of unknown and unconfirmed value; or iii) the proposed vector, gene construct, or method of delivery is associated with possible toxicities that are not widely known and that may render it difficult for oversight bodies to evaluate the protocol rigorously. If an oversight body requests public RAC review, but the NIH determines that the protocol does not have one or more of the above characteristics (listed in i, ii, or iii), then the NIH will inform the requesting oversight body that public RAC review is not warranted. (2) Public RAC review and discussion of protocols not requested for review by an oversight body may be initiated by the NIH Director, after consultation (if needed) with appropriate regulatory authorities, if: (a) The protocol has one or more of the three characteristics listed above (i, ii, or iii) and public RAC review and discussion would provide a clear and obvious benefit to the scientific community or the public; or (b) the protocol otherwise raises significant scientific, societal, or ethical concerns.

    If it is determined that a human gene transfer trial will undergo RAC review, the NIH will immediately notify the Principal Investigator. RAC recommendations following public review on a specific human gene transfer experiment shall be forwarded to the Principal Investigator, oversight bodies, and regulatory authorities, as appropriate. Relevant documentation will be included in the material for the RAC meeting at which the human gene transfer trial is scheduled to be discussed. RAC meetings will be open to the public except where trade secrets and proprietary information are reviewed (see Section IV-D-5, Protection of Proprietary Data—Voluntary Compliance). The NIH prefers that information provided in response to Appendix M contain no proprietary data or trade secrets, enabling all aspects of the review to be open to the public.

    Some but not all sections of Appendix M-I Requirements for Protocol Submission, Review, and Reporting—Human Gene Transfer Experiments are proposed to be amended to decrease the number and amount of supporting documentation that must be submitted upon protocol registration, and to modify the timing of the registration processes. As proposed, Principal Investigators must submit the material as outlined below to oversight bodies at the proposed clinical trial sites; however, submission of responses to Appendices M-II through M-V or curriculum vitae will no longer be required.

    Appendix M-I-A currently states:

    Appendix M-I.A. Requirements for Protocol Submission

    The following documentation must be submitted (see exemption in Appendix M-III-A, Footnotes of Appendix M) in printed or electronic form to the: Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985 (20817 for non-USPS mail), 301-496-9838, 301-496-9839 (fax), Email: [email protected] NIH OBA will confirm receipt within three working days after receiving the submission. Investigators should contact NIH OBA if they do not receive this confirmation.

    1. A cover letter on institutional letterhead, signed by the Principal Investigator(s), that: (1) Acknowledges that the documentation submitted to NIH OBA complies with the requirements set forth in Appendix M-I-A, Requirements for Protocol Submission; (2) identifies the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the proposed clinical trial site(s) responsible for local review and approval of the protocol; and (3) acknowledges that no research participant will be enrolled (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7) until the RAC review process has been completed (see Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements); IBC approval (from the clinical trial site) has been obtained; IRB approval has been obtained; and all applicable regulatory authorizations have been obtained.

    2. The scientific abstract.

    3. The non-technical abstract.

    4. The proposed clinical protocol, including tables, figures, and relevant manuscripts.

    5. Responses to Appendices M-II through M-V, Description of the Proposal, Informed Consent, Privacy, and Special Issues. Responses to Appendices M-II through M-V may be provided either as an appendix to the clinical protocol or incorporated in the clinical protocol. If responses to Appendices M-II through M-V are incorporated in the clinical protocol, each response must refer to the appropriate Appendix M-II through M-V.

    6. The proposed informed consent document.

    7. Curriculum vitae of the Principal Investigator(s) (no more than two pages in biographical sketch format).

    Note: A human gene transfer experiment submitted to NIH OBA should not contain confidential commercial information or trade secrets, enabling all aspects of the review to be open to the public.

    Appendix M-I-A is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Appendix M-I-A. Requirements for Protocol Submission

    The following documentation must be submitted according to institutional policy, to the appropriate oversight bodies and subsequently in electronic form to the NIH OSP:

    1. A scientific abstract.

    2. The proposed clinical protocol, including tables, figures, and any relevant publications.

    3. Summary of preclinical studies conducted in support of the proposed clinical trial or reference to the specific section of the protocol providing this information.

    4. A description of the product:

    a. Describe the derivation of the delivery vector system including the source (e.g., viral, bacterial, or plasmid vector); and modifications (e.g., deletions to attenuate or self-inactivate, encapsulation in any synthetic complex, changes to tropisms, etc.). Please reference any previous clinical experience with this vector or similar vectors.

    b. Describe the genetic content of the transgene or nucleic acid delivered including the species source of the sequence and whether any modifications have been made (e.g. mutations, deletions, and truncations). What are the regulatory elements contained in the construct?

    c. Describe any other material to be used in preparation of the agent (vector and transgene) that will be administered to the human research subject (e.g., helper virus, packaging cell line, carrier particles).

    d. Describe the methods for replication-competent virus testing, if applicable.

    e. Describe the intended ex vivo or in vivo target cells and transduction efficiency.

    f. Describe the gene transfer agent delivery method.

    5. The proposed informed consent document.

    6. Specifically for submission to the NIH OSP, the PI shall provide additional documentation from oversight bodies regarding their assessment of whether RAC review is warranted. In the event that review is requested, the documentation shall include a justification that the protocol characteristics (see Section III-C-1) that would warrant RAC public review have been met.

    Note: Any application submitted shall not contain any document that is designated as 'confidential' in its entirety. In the event that a sponsor determines that a portion of a specific document should be considered as proprietary or trade secret, each portion of the document should be clearly identified as such. In the event that a specific portion of the submission does contain information that a sponsor considers to be proprietary or trade secret, the submission to the NIH OSP must contain a letter from the sponsor that: (1) Clearly indicates what select portions of the application contain information considered as proprietary or trade secret, (2) provides an adequate and convincing justification as to the reason that this information is considered to be proprietary or trade secret. The justification must be able to demonstrate with specificity how release of that information will reveal a trade secret or will result in substantial competitive harm.

    Appendix M-I-B, RAC Review Requirements is proposed to be amended to change the process and timing of initial and RAC review. Currently, investigators are informed within 15 working days whether or not the protocol requires public RAC review. Public discussion of selected protocols then occurs at the next quarterly RAC meeting, which occurs, at a minimum of, eight weeks after receipt of a complete protocol submission. Under the proposal, individual RAC members will no longer make a recommendation regarding whether a protocol should be selected for review at a public meeting.

    Therefore, Appendix M-1-B-1 and Appendix M-1-B-2 are being amended as follows to form a consolidated Appendix M-1-B:

    Appendix M-1-B. Selection of Individual Protocols for Public RAC Review and Discussion

    As part of the NIH protocol registration process, documentation from oversight bodies regarding their assessment of whether RAC review is warranted. If no oversight body would significantly benefit from public RAC review and discussion, then the Principal Investigator shall submit all of the documentation required to register the submission (see Appendix M-I-A) to the NIH OSP at any time but shall occur not less than three working days prior to the anticipated date of enrollment of the first subject (see definition of enrollment in Section I-E-7), and shall be provided in electronic form to the Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985 (20817 for non-USPS mail), 301-496-9838, 301-496-9839 (fax), Email: [email protected] Enrollment may proceed upon acknowledgement that the submission is registered.

    If an oversight body determines that: (1) A protocol submission would significantly benefit from public RAC review and discussion and (2) that one or more of the following NIH RAC review criteria are met: (i) The protocol uses a new vector, genetic material, or delivery methodology that represents a first-in-human experience, thus presenting an unknown risk; or (ii) the protocol relies on preclinical safety data that were obtained using a new preclinical model system of unknown and unconfirmed value; or (iii) the proposed vector, gene construct, or method of delivery is associated with possible toxicities that are not widely known and that may render it difficult for local and federal regulatory bodies to evaluate the protocol rigorously, and is therefore requesting RAC review and public discussion, the Principal Investigator shall submit the documentation as outlined in Appendix M-I-A at least 8 weeks prior to the next scheduled meeting in order to be reviewed at that RAC meeting. The submission shall include documentation from oversight bodies regarding their assessment of whether RAC review is warranted and that one or both have justified their request according the NIH RAC review criteria listed above. The submission shall be provided to the NIH in electronic form to the Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985 (20817 for non-USPS mail), 301-496-9838, 301-496-9839 (fax), Email: [email protected] If NIH determines that any of the criteria listed in subsections (i), (ii), or (iii) above is met, the protocol will undergo public RAC review and discussion.

    If an oversight body requests that the RAC review a protocol and the NIH determines that the protocol does not satisfy one or more of the above NIH RAC review criteria, the NIH OSP will inform the Principal Investigator, oversight bodies, and regulatory authorities, as appropriate, that RAC review is not warranted.

    Even if an oversight body does not request that a particular protocol be reviewed by the RAC, the NIH Director, after consultation (if needed) with appropriate regulatory authorities, may initiate RAC review if (a) the protocol has one or more of the characteristics listed above (i, ii, or iii) and public RAC review and discussion would provide a clear and obvious benefit to the scientific community or public; or (b) the protocol otherwise raises significant scientific, societal, or ethical concerns.

    Completion of the registration process is defined as: (1) Receipt by the Principal Investigator of a letter from the NIH OSP indicating that protocol registration process is complete and that enrollment may proceed; or (2) receipt by the Principal Investigator of a letter from the NIH after public RAC review that summarizes the committee's key comments and recommendations (if any).

    A complete human gene transfer protocol package must be submitted at least eight weeks before a scheduled RAC meeting to be reviewed at that upcoming meeting.

    After a human gene transfer experiment is publicly reviewed by the full RAC at a regularly scheduled meeting, the NIH OSP will send a letter summarizing the RAC's key comments and recommendations (if any) regarding the protocol to the Principal Investigator(s), oversight bodies, and regulatory authorities as appropriate. Completion of RAC review is defined as receipt by the Principal Investigator(s) of a letter from the NIH OSP summarizing the committee's findings. Unless the NIH determines that there are exceptional circumstances, the letter containing recommendations and comments made following public review will be sent within 10 working days after the completion of the RAC meeting at which the protocol was reviewed.

    RAC meetings will be open to the public except where trade secrets or confidential commercial information are reviewed. To enable all aspects of the protocol review process to be open to the public, information provided in response to Appendix M-I-A should not contain trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. An application submitted to the NIH OSP shall not contain any document that is designated as `confidential' in its entirety. In the event that a determination has been made that a specific portion of a document submitted as one of the items described in Appendix M should be considered as confidential commercial or financial information or a trade secret, each item must be clearly identified as such. The cover letter (attached to the submitted material) shall: (1) Clearly designate the information that is considered as confidential commercial or financial information or a trade secret; and (2) explain and justify each designation to demonstrate with specificity how release of that information will reveal a trade secret or will result in substantial competitive harm.

    There are no proposed amendments to Appendix M-I-C, Reporting Requirements and Appendix M-I-D, Safety Assessments in Human Gene Transfer Research.

    The current appendices Appendix M-II, Description of the Proposal; Appendix M-III, Informed Consent; Appendix M-IV, Privacy; and Appendix M-V, Special Issues are proposed to be deleted in their entirety, except for Appendix M-III-B-2-b, Long Term Follow-Up which will be updated to include a reference to FDA's current guidance on this issue and will become Appendix M-II.

    Appendix M-II is proposed to be amended as follows:

    Appendix M-II. Long Term Follow-Up

    To permit evaluation of long-term safety and efficacy of gene transfer, prospective subjects should be informed that they are expected to cooperate in long-term follow-up that extends beyond the active phase of the study. A list of persons who can be contacted in the event that questions arise during the follow-up period should be provided to the investigator. In addition, the investigator should request that subjects continue to provide a current address and telephone number.

    The subjects should be informed that any significant findings resulting from the study will be made known in a timely manner to them and/or their parent or guardian including new information about the experimental procedure, the harms and benefits experienced by other individuals involved in the study, and any long-term effects that have been observed.

    Additional guidance is available in the FDA Guidance for Industry: Gene Therapy Clinical Trials—Observing Subjects for Delayed Adverse Events (available at the following URL: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/default.htm).

    Appendix M-VI Footnotes of Appendix M will be renumbered to Appendix M-III. Footnotes of Appendix M. There will be no amendment to the language.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Francis S. Collins, Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26388 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIEHS.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIEHS.

    Date: November 15-17, 2015.

    Closed: November 15, 2015, 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Doubletree Guest Suites, 2515 Meridian Parkway, Research Triangle Park, NC 27713.

    Open: November 16, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

    Agenda: Scientific Presentations.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Closed: November 16, 2015, 11:50 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Open: November 16, 2015, 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    Agenda: Poster Session.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Closed: November 16, 2015, 3 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Open: November 16, 2015, 3:45 p.m. to 5:25 p.m.

    Agenda: Scientific Presentations.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Closed: November 16, 2015, 5:25 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Closed: November 16, 2015, 6:15 p.m. to 10 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Doubletree Guest Suites, 2515 Meridian Parkway, Research Triangle Park, NC 27713.

    Open: November 17, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 10:10 a.m.

    Agenda: Scientific Presentations.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Closed: November 17, 2015, 10:10 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Open: November 17, 2015, 10:55 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    Agenda: Scientific Presentations.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Closed: November 17, 2015, 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues.

    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, Rooms 101 ABC, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Contact Person: Darryl C. Zeldin, Scientific Director & Principal Investigator, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, 111 TW Alexander Drive, Maildrop A2-09, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-541-1169, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 9, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26341 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0950] Sewage Treatment Technology—Type Approval of Marine Sanitation Devices AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will conduct a public workshop in Washington, DC to discuss sewage treatment technologies, issues concerning testing of marine sanitation devices for type approval, and issues concerning gray water. This workshop is intended to be an interactive exchange of information between policymakers, industry experts, and interested members of the public.

    DATES:

    The workshop will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, December 8 and 9, 2015 beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Time. This workshop is open to the public. Please note that the workshop has a limited number of seats and may close early if all business is finished. Contact the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by December 4, 2015 to reserve seating. The comment period for the docket closes January 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The workshop will be held in conference rooms 8, 9, and 10 of the Department of Transportation Headquarters Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. The building is accessible by public transportation (Navy Yard subway station) or taxi. Parking for privately-owned vehicles is available nearby. Due to security requirements, each visitor must present a valid government-issued photo identification (for example, a driver's license) in order to gain entrance to the building. Contact the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to facilitate the security process related to building access, or to request reasonable accommodation.

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0950 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions concerning the workshop, please call or email Mr. Wayne Lundy, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1379, email [email protected] or Ms. Katherine Weiler, Environmental Protection Agency; telephone 202-566-1280, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Your comment is important to us. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number shown at the beginning of this notice and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact us (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    This workshop is sponsored by the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency and is intended to be an interactive exchange of information between policymakers, industry experts, and interested members of the public. The primary topics that will be discussed include:

    • Sewage treatment technologies;

    • Issues concerning testing of marine sanitation devices for type approval;

    • Simple on board checks for verifying performance of marine sanitation devices;

    • Impact of gray water on the environment;

    • Impact on the ship from processing gray water;

    • Technologies for processing of gray water;

    • Analytes for considering technologies treating gray water;

    • Issues associated with existing federal standards and MARPOL Annex IV equipment standards (International Maritime Organization (IMO) resolution MEPC.227(64));

    • Impact of No Discharge Zones; and

    • Revision of an industry consensus standard, ASTM F2363—“Standard Specification for Sewage and Graywater Flow Through Treatment Systems”.

    Please note that the workshop has a limited number of seats and may close early if all business is finished.

    We encourage you to participate and join in discussions, subject to the discretion of the moderator. If you wish to attend the meeting via teleconference, arrange for assistance in attending the meeting in person, or make a presentation, contact us (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; audiovisual arrangements will be available). If you bring written comments to the workshop, you may submit them at the meeting and we will place them on our docket.

    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: 13 October, 2015. J. G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26363 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0960] Coast Guard Acceptance of Sewage Treatment Plants for Type-Approval to International Maritime Organization Resolution MEPC.227(64) AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Policy and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces its acceptance of sewage treatment plants (also referred to as marine sanitation devices) for type-approval to International Maritime Organization resolution MEPC.227(64) as meeting the requirements for marine sanitation devices. This action will allow manufacturers as well as shipowners and operators the option to take advantage of building and using equipment that meets both domestic and international requirements while also benefitting the environment. The Coast Guard is also seeking information on simple on board checks to verify performance of sewage treatment plants.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 16, 2015.

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0880 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document call or email Wayne M. Lundy, CG-ENG-3, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1379, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We are also planning to hold a two-day public workshop in Washington DC in the fall of 2015. We will issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a workshop. The purpose of the workshop will be to discuss sewage treatment technologies, issues concerning testing of marine sanitation devices for type approval and information on simple on board checks to verify performance of a marine sanitation device. The workshop will also consider issues associated with existing federal standards and MARPOL Annex IV equipment standards (resolution MEPC.227(64)), impact of No Discharge Zones, and issues concerning gray water.

    Background and Purpose

    Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 159, prescribes requirements for the design and construction of marine sanitation devices (“MSDs”, also referred to as sewage treatment plants) and procedures for certifying that MSDs meet the regulations and standards of the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated under Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500, § 312, 86 Stat. 871 (October 18, 1972), as amended; classified to 33 U.S.C. 1322). In October 2012, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted resolution MEPC.227(64)—2012 Guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants. The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 73/78 (MARPOL) Annex IV requires sewage treatment plants to be type-approved taking into account the standards of IMO Resolution MEPC.227(64). While the United States is not a Contracting Government to MARPOL Annex IV, we recognize that the limits and standards in IMO resolution MEPC.227(64) are more stringent or prescriptive than those requirements in 33 CFR 159 concerning threshold limits and testing of equipment and thus equipment that is type-approved to the MEPC.227(64) standards would also satisfy U.S. threshold effluent limits. Specifically, we have determined that a MSD meeting the design specifications in MEPC.227(64) would exceed the performance specifications for Type II tanks, as listed in 33 CFR 159.53(b), which states that, “[u]nder the test conditions described in §§ 159.126 and 159.126a, [the tanks must] produce an effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per liter.”

    In recognition of this, the Coast Guard believes MSDs type-approved in accordance with the requirements of IMO resolution MEPC.227(64) and installed on U.S. flagged ships comply with those threshold effluent limits in 33 CFR 159.53(b). MSDs must still meet the other requirements contained in part 159, and any inconsistencies between part 159 and MEPC.227(64) must be resolved in favor of part 159. Manufacturers may submit their equipment to a recognized testing facility recognized by the Coast Guard for testing of such equipment and may make a submission to the Coast Guard requesting type approval.

    Resolution MEPC.227(64) also contains a process allowing the Coast Guard to certify that a type-approved MSD meets the specific effluent discharge requirements for a vessel to enter Special Areas listed in MARPOL Annex IV. The Coast Guard would certify that the MSD meets the enhanced effluent discharge and treatment specifications listed in MEPC.227(64). Under MARPOL Annex IV Regulations 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, vessels with MSDs conforming to the Special Area specifications contained in MEPC.227(64) may be permitted to operate in Special Areas. This certification would allow U.S.-flagged vessels to document that they meet those standards.

    However, U.S.-flagged vessels voluntarily installing MSDs in accordance with MARPOL Annex IV standards must comply with the U.S. application of MEPC.227(64), as follows, to receive U.S. certification. Currently, MEPC.227(64), is vague on the amount of reduction required for thermotolerant coliform (TC), total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand without nitrification (BOD5) and chemical oxygen demand (COD). While Section 3 of MEPC.227(64) states that “[i]n meeting the effluent standards in Section 4, an approved sewage treatment plant should not rely solely on dilution of wastewater,” there are no specific levels of reduction given for TC, TSS, BOD5 and COD (unlike the specific Percent Reductions given for discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus in Section 4.2).

    IMO Resolution MEPC.227(64) states that an approved MSD not rely solely on dilution of wastewater in order to meet the effluent limits stipulated in resolution MEPC.227(64). Resolution MEPC.227(64) further states that, where amounts of dilution are deemed essential to a treatment process, the effluent standards in Section 4 should be adjusted proportionally using dilution compensation factor Qi/Qe to account for dilution Qd.1 In order to demonstrate that the MSD does not rely solely on dilution of wastewater in order to meet the effluent standards, the effluent concentration value Ce for any particular analyte addressed in resolution MEPC.227(64), Section 4.1 (specifically, TC, TSS, BOD5 and COD) will need to be less than the effluent standard for that analyte multiplied by the dilution compensation factor Qi/Qe.

    1 Dilution (Qd)—is dilution water, grey water, process water, and/or seawater introduced to the sewage treatment plant after the influent sample point and after the influent flow measurement device, see figure 1 of resolution MEPC.227(64).

    Effluent (Qe)—is treated wastewater produced by the sewage treatment plant, see figure 1 of resolution MEPC.227(64).

    Influent (Qi)—is liquid containing sewage, grey water or other liquid streams, to be processed by the treatment plant, see figure 1of resolution MEPC.227(64).

    In order for a MSD to be able to be technically evaluated for type approval under MEPC.227(64), the concentration value of the effluent for that analyte being considered must be readable, i.e., at or above the detection limit for the test method for that analyte. For consideration by the Coast Guard, a MSD, after application of the dilution compensation factor Qi/Qe, the revised effluent concentration value of any analyte measured at the Effluent Sample Point as shown in figure 1 of this Notice of Policy cannot be below the Test Method detection limit for that analyte. Figure 1 is replicated from resolution MEPC.227(64). If the revised concentration value is below the Test Method detection limit for that analyte, then it becomes impossible for the concentration value to be physically measured.

    EN16OC15.037

    To make the above determination for Annex IV certification, the Coast Guard will use the approved test methods that are listed in the Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR 136, Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants). The following methods must be used:

    • Thermotolerant Coliform (TC) Test Method EPA 600/8-78-017 Chapter III 2 (Detection Limit = 1 colony form unit (CFU)/100 mL),

    2 Please refer to Page Number 124 in document USEPA. 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment, Water, and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/8-78/017; weblink: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/300014TD.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976%20Thru%201980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C76THRU80%5CTXT%5C00000000%5C300014TD.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1.

    • Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Test Method 160.2 (Detection Limit = 4.0 mg/L),

    • Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) without nitrification 3 Test Method 5210 B3 (Detection Limit = 2.0 mg/L),

    3 The equivalent U.S. EPA Test Method for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) without nitrification is done as carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) and should not be confused with the traditional BOD5 test method which measures “total BOD”. The addition of the nitrification inhibitor is not a procedural option, but must be included to report the CBOD5 parameter.

    • Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Test Method 410.4 (Detection Limit = 3.0 mg/L),

    • pH Test Method 150.1 (none stated but not normally reported below 0.01),4

    4 There is no US EPA Test Method listed in 40 CFR 136 so the US EPA has adopted American Public Health Association (APHA) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The current edition is the 22nd edition.

    • Total Nitrogen 5 351.2 (Detection Limit = 0.5 mg/L),

    5 Total Nitrogen means the sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic and ammoniacal nitrogen) nitrate-nitrogen and nitrite-nitrogen.

    Total Phosphorus Test Method 365.2 (Detection Limit = 0.01 mg/L) and Disinfectant residual

    • Chlorine Test Method 330.5 (Detection Limit = 0.2 mg/L)

    The Coast Guard is also seeking information on possible simple on board checks that may be available and easily used to verify performance of a sewage treatment plant with effluent requirements.

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: October 9, 2015. F.J. Sturm, Deputy Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26285 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1534] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 28, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter of map revision Effective date of modification Community No.
    Alabama: Tuscaloosa City of Tuscaloosa (15-04-0628P) The Honorable Walter Maddox, Mayor, City of Tuscaloosa, 2201 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Engineering Department, 2201 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 23, 2015 010203 Tuscaloosa City of Tuscaloosa (15-04-4630P) The Honorable William P. Kenoi, Mayor, County of Hawaii, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Engineering Department, 2201 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 21, 2015 155166 Tuscaloosa Unincorporated areas of Tuscaloosa County (15-04-0628P) The Honorable W. Hardy Mccollum, Chairman, Tuscaloosa County Board of Commissioners, 714 Greensboro Avenue, Tuscaloosa, AL 35402 Tuscaloosa County Engineering Department, 2810 35th Street, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 23, 2015 010201 Colorado: Jefferson City of Golden (15-08-0786P) The Honorable Marjorie Sloan, Mayor, City of Golden, 911 10th Street, Golden, CO 80401 Public Works Department, 1445 10th Street, Golden, CO 80401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 23, 2015 080090 Teller City of Woodland Park (15-08-0099P) The Honorable Neil Levy, Mayor, City of Woodland Park, P.O. Box 9007, Woodland Park, CO 80866 City Hall, 220 West South Avenue, Woodland Park, CO 80866 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 22, 2015 080175 Montana: Gallatin City of Bozeman (15-08-0124P) The Honorable Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 Public Works Department, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59771 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 23, 2015 300028 Stillwater Town of Columbus (15-08-0781P) The Honorable Gary Woltermann, Mayor, Town of Columbus, P.O. Box 549, Columbus, MT 59019 Stillwater County West Annex, 431 Quarry Road, Columbus, MT 59019 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 19, 2015 300109 North Carolina: Randolph Unincorporated areas of Randolph County (15-04-3243P) The Honorable Darrell L. Frye, Chairman, Randolph County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 4728, Asheboro, NC 27204 Randolph County Department of Planning and Development, 204 East Academy Street, Asheboro, NC 27203 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 22, 2015 370195 North Dakota: Cass City of Fargo (15-08-0016P) The Honorable Tim Mahoney, Mayor, City of Fargo, 200 3rd Street North, Fargo, ND 58102 City Hall, 200 3rd Street North, Fargo, ND 58102 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 3, 2015 385364 Texas: Bell City of Temple (15-06-1800P) The Honorable Danny Dunn, Mayor, City of Temple, 2 North Main Street, Suite 103, Temple, TX 76501 Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, 3210 East Avenue H, Building A, Suite 107, Temple, TX 76501 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 3, 2015 480034 Bexar City of San Antonio (14-06-3172P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 15, 2015 480045 Denton City of Denton (14-06-3408P) The Honorable Chris A. Watts, Mayor, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 Engineering Department, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, TX 76509 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 4, 2015 480194 Denton City of Denton (15-06-0979P) The Honorable Chris A. Watts, Mayor, City of Denton, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 Engineering Department, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, TX 76509 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 19, 2015 480194 Harris City of Houston (14-06-4559P) The Honorable Annise D. Parker, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 Floodplain Management Office, 1002 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Houston, TX 77002 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 16, 2015 480296 Harris City of Pasadena (14-06-4559P) The Honorable Johnny Isbell, Mayor, City of Pasadena, 1211 Southmore Avenue, Pasadena, TX 77502 Engineering Department, 1114 Davis Street, 2nd Floor, Pasadena, TX 77506 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 16, 2015 480307 Harris Unincorporated areas of Harris County (15-06-1289P) The Honorable Ed M. Emmett, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston Street, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002 Harris County Permit Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77092 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 30, 2015 480287 Hunt City of Greenville (14-06-4302P) The Honorable Steve Reid, Mayor, City of Greenville, P.O. Box 1049, Greenville, TX 75403 Public Works Department, 2315 Johnson Street, Greenville, TX 75401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Jul. 8, 2015 485473 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (14-06-4046P) The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Sep. 15, 2015 480596 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (15-06-0295P) The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Aug. 25, 2015 480596 Travis Unincorporated areas of Travis County (15-06-1733P) The Honorable Sarah Eckhardt, Travis County Judge, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767 Travis County Office of Emergency Management Services, 5010 Old Manor Road, Austin TX 78723 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 28, 2015 481026 Virginia: Independent City City of Salem (14-03-3079P) The Honorable Byron Foley, Mayor, City of Salem, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, VA 24153 Engineering and Inspections Department, 25 East Main Street, Salem, VA 24153 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Oct. 9, 2015 510141
    [FR Doc. 2015-26375 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1533] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: August 28, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter of map revision Effective date of modification Community No.
    Illinois: Adams City of Quincy, (15-05-4067P) The Honorable Kyle Moore, Mayor, City of Quincy, 730 Maine Street, Quincy, IL 62301 Quincy City Hall, 730 Maine Street, Quincy, IL 62301 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Sept. 24, 2015 170003 Adams Unincorporated areas of Adams County, (15-05-4067P) The Honorable Les Post, Chairman, Adams County Board, 101 North 54th Street, Quincy, IL 62305 Adams County Highway Department, 101 North 54th Street, Quincy, IL 62305 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Sept. 24, 2015 170001 Indiana: Allen Unincorporated areas of Allen County, (15-05-5235P) Commissioner Nelson Peters, Allen County, Board of Commissioners, Citizens Square, 200 East Berry Street, Suite 410, Fort Wayne, IN 46802 200 East Berry Street, Suite 150, Fort Wayne, IN 46802 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 27, 2015 180302 Missouri: Jackson City Of Lee's Summit, (15-07-1190P) The Honorable Randy Rhoads, Mayor, City of Lee's Summit, 220 Southeast Green Street, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 207 Southwest Market Street, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 26, 2015 290174 Jefferson Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, (15-07-0620P) Mr. Ken Walker, Jefferson County Executive, Jefferson County Administration Center, 729 Maple Street, Suite G30, Hillsboro, MO 63050 729 Maple Street, Suite G30, Hillsboro, MO 63050 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 13, 2015 290808 Utah: Uintah City Of Vernal, (14-08-0909P) The Honorable Sonja Norton, Mayor, City of Vernal, 374 East Main Street, Vernal, UT 84078 447 East Main Street, Vernal, UT 84078 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 25, 2015 490149 Uintah Unincorporated areas of Uintah County, (14-08-0909P) The Honorable Mike McKee, Commissioner, Uintah County, 152 East 100 North, Vernal, UT 84078 152 East 100 North, Vernal, UT 84078 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 25, 2015 490147 Virginia: Prince William City Of Manassas, (15-03-1081P) The Honorable Harry J. Parrish, II, Mayor, City of Manassas, 9027 Center Street, Manassas, VA 20110 Manassas City Engineer's Office, 9027 Center Street, Suite 203, Manassas, VA 20110 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 19, 2015 510122 Prince William Unincorporated areas of Prince William County, (15-03-1081P) Mr. Corey A. Stewart, Chairman, Board of County Supervisors, One County Complex Court, Prince William, VA 22192 Prince William County Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division, 4379 Ridgewood Center Drive, Prince William, VA 22192 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc. Nov. 19, 2015 510119
    [FR Doc. 2015-26374 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-42] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Agriculture: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; Army: Ms. Veronica Rines, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Department of Army, Room 5A128, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310, (571) 256-8145; Energy: Mr. David Steinau, Department of Energy, Office of Property Management, OECM MA-50, 4B122, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585 (202) 287-1503; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; Interior: Mr. Michael Wright, Acquisition & Property Management, Department of the Interior, 3960 N. 56th Ave. #104, Hollywood, FL. 33021; (443) 223-4639; Navy: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management; Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426; (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Brian P. Fitzmaurice, Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 10/16/2015 Suitable/Available Properties Building Michigan Former Newport Nike Missile Site D-58 800 East Newport Road Newport MI 48166 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530010 Status: Excess GSA Number: 1-D-MI-0536 Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; Landholding Agency: COE Comments: 70+ yrs. old; 3 buildings totaling 11,447 sq. ft.; sits on 36.35 acres; industrial; training site; extremely poor/hazardous condition; remediation required; contact GSA for more information. North Carolina Tract 01-160 115 British Lakes Greensboro NC 27410 Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61201530027 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 1,271 sq. ft.; residential: very poor conditions; lead & aspects; contact interior for more information. 4 Buildings Green Acres Lane Greensboro NC 27410 Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61201530028 Status: Unutilized Directions: tract 01-151 (1,002 sq. ft.), Tract 01-152 (1,612 sq. ft.), Tract 01-158 (1,822 sq. ft.), Tract 01-163A (1,318 sq. ft.) Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need residential; leaking underground heating tanks; lead & asbestos; contact Interior for more information on a specific property. Trace 01-163B 3609 Battleground Road Greensboro NC 27410 Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61201530029 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 1,020 sq. ft.; residential; lead & asbestos; leaking underground heating tanks; contact Interior for more information. Wisconsin Canthook Lake—House/Storage Canthook Lake Iron River WI Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530009 Status: Excess GSA Number: 1-A-WI-0624-AA Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; Land Holding Agency: Agriculture Comments: off-site removal only; 70+ yrs. old; 4,004 sq. ft.; residential; average condition; contact GSA for more information. Land California FAA Sacramento Middle Maker Site 1354 Palomar Circle Sacramento CA 95831 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530007 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 9-U-CA-1707-AA Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; Landholding Agency: FAA Comments: 0.29 Acres; contact GSA for more information. Guam Andersen Administrative Annex (Andy South) Marine Corps Dr. & Turner Street Yigo GU Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530027 Status: Unutilized Comments: 43,560 sq. ft. portion of Anderson Administrative Annex is occupied by the Guam Fire Dept. contact Navy for more information. Unsuitable Properties Building Alaska NMFS Combine Building Priblof Island St. Paul AK 99660 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530008 Status: Unutilized GSA Number: 9-C-AK-46622-S Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; Landholding Agency: NOAA Comments: property is inaccessible because it is located on a (small) off-shore island; property located within floodway which has not been correct or contained only accessible by sea plane. Reasons: Floodway New York Building 1438 West Point; Range Rd. (Range 8) West Point NY 10996 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21201530095 Status: Unutilized Comments: RE-DETERMINATION: structurally unsound; attempt of removal will most likely result in collapse of bldg.; clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration 5 Buildings Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton NY 11973 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41201530007 Status: Excess Directions: Building 562, 950, 954, 180, 355 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising National Security. Reasons: Secured Area Oregon JC, Trailer #12 Bldg. ID 1202 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530049 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies; severe structural damages; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #19 Bldg. ID 1195 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530050 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damages; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #11 Bldg. ID 1191 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530052 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damages; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #10 Bldg. ID 1203 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530053 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damage; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #29 Bldg. ID 1198 59868 East Hwy. Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530054 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damage; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #25 Bldg. ID 1200 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530055 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damage; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #22 Bldg. ID 1197 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530056 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damage; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration JC, Trailer #26 Bldg. ID 1199 59868 East Hwy. 224 Estacada OR 97023 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530057 Status: Underutilized Directions: 060610 1617 Timber Lake Job Corps CCC Comments: documented deficiencies: severe structural damage; building collapsing; represents a clear threat to personal physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration Virginia CEP-41, Destroyer Squadron 1520 Gilbert Street Norfolk VA 23511 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530028 Status: Excess Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area
    [FR Doc. 2015-26014 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCO923000-L14400000-ET0000-15X] Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting, Deep Creek Canyon and Corridor, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application (COC 77206) with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw approximately 4,200 acres of National Forest System lands within the White River National Forest from location and entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 20 years to protect multiple outstanding features, including scenic, recreational, geologic, ecologic, wildlife, and fisheries values, in the Deep Creek canyon and corridor.

    The character of the canyon and corridor is natural and essentially primitive, and the lands and free-flowing waters were found to be eligible for Wild and Scenic designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in the 2002 White River National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan Revision. The Forest Plan decision recommended withdrawal of the canyon and corridor from location and entry under the United States mining laws.

    This notice temporarily segregates the land for up to 2 years from location and entry under the United States mining laws while the application is being processed. This notice also provides the public an opportunity to comment on the application and to request a public meeting. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral and geothermal leasing, and to such forms of disposition as may be allowed by law on National Forest System lands.

    DATES:

    Comments and public meeting requests must be received by January 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and meeting requests should be sent to Steve Craddock, Branch of Lands and Realty, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Craddock, BLM Colorado State Office, 303-239-3707, or Carole Huey, White River National Forest, 970-945-3219, during regular business hours 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The USFS has filed an application with the BLM pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, requesting the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw the following described National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 20 years, subject to valid existing rights:

    White River National Forest Sixth Principal Meridian T. 4 S., R. 87 W., sec. 6, beginning at a point on the west line of Section 6 from which the corner common to Sections 6 and 7 bears South a distance of 2665 feet, thence S.65°E. a distance of 1100 feet; thence N.55°E. a distance of 400 feet; thence N.15°E. a distance of 800 feet; thence N.40°W. a distance of 600 feet; thence N.10°W. a distance of 1100 feet; thence N.40°E. a distance of 600 feet; thence S.20°E. a distance of 1300 feet; thence S.30°E. 1300 feet; thence S.30°W. a distance of 800 feet; thence South a distance of 800 feet; thence S.45°E. a distance of 1500 feet; thence N.75°E. a distance of 1300 feet; thence South a distance of 750 feet to the south line of said Section 6; thence S.89°52′ W., along the south line of Section 6, a distance of 4452 feet to the corner on the township line common to Sections 6 and 7; thence North, along the west township line, a distance of 2665 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 7, beginning at the corner common to Sections 6 and 7 on the west township line; thence N.89°52′E., along the north line of Section 7, a distance of 4452 feet, thence South a distance of 1150 feet to a point at 9450 feet elevation, thence S.50°E. a distance of 350 feet; thence S.55°E. a distance of 2000 feet; thence S.10°E. a distance of 200 feet; thence South a distance of 700 feet; thence S.40°E. a distance of 668 feet to a point on the east line of Section 7; thence S.89°50′W., along the south line of Section 7 a distance of 4614 feet; thence N.30°E. a distance of 280 feet; thence N.65°W. a distance of 1100 feet; thence North a distance of 50 feet; thence N.50°E. a distance of 1550 feet; thence N.25°W. a distance of 300 feet; thence N.75°W. a distance of 1300 feet; thence N.45°W. a distance of 300 feet; thence North a distance of 200 feet; thence N.80°E. a distance of 1200 feet; thence N.15°W. a distance of 500 feet; thence N.75°W. a distance of 900 feet; thence N.50°W. a distance of 2000 feet to the west line of Section 7; thence North, along the west line of Section 7 a distance of 286 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 8, beginning at corner common to Sections 8 and 17 only; thence N.0°08′W., along the west line of Section 8, a distance of 830 feet; thence S.40°E. a distance of 30 feet; thence S.70°E. a distance of 700 feet; thence S.30°W. a distance of 600 feet; thence S.20°E. a distance of 60 feet to a point on the south line of Section 8; thence West, along the south line of Section 8, a distance of 420 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 17, W1/2W1/2W1/2SW1/4; sec. 18,. E1/2W1/2NE1/4, E1/2NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 19, NE1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4NE1/4, E1/2NE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 20, S1/2NE1/4,SE1/4, N1/2SE1/4SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4SW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, S1/2NW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4; sec. 21. lot 4, W1/2SW1/4, SW1/4NW1/4; sec. 28, beginning at the corner common to Sections 20, 21, 28 and 29, thence S.89°47′E. along the north section line of Section 28, a distance of 1317 feet; thence S.0°02.5′E. a distance of 1616 feet to a point on the north line of Tract 40; thence West, along said north line of Tract 40, a distance of 400 feet to Angle Point 2 of said Tract 40; thence N.40°W. a distance of 180 feet; thence S.70°W. a distance of 900 feet to a point on the west line of Section 28; thence N0°02′W. along the west section line of Section 28 a distance of 1820 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 29, beginning at the section corner common to Sections 20, 21, 28 and 29; thence S.0°02′E. along the east line of Section 29 a distance of 1820 feet; thence S.75°W. a distance of 1100 feet; thence S.85°W. a distance of 100 feet; thence N.80°W. a distance of 400 feet; thence N.30°W. a distance of 400 feet; thence North a distance of 700 feet; thence N.10°W. a distance of 300 feet; thence N.55°W. a distance of 1500 feet to a point on the north line of Section 29; thence N.89°53′E. along the north line of Section 29 a distance of 3940 feet to the Point of Beginning. T. 3 S., R.88 W. (unsurveyed public lands), Beginning at the southeast corner of P.L.O. 1611, stated as being the southeast corner of the N1/2S1/2SW1/4 of Section 20, thence West, on and along the south boundary of P.L.O 1611, a distance of 1160 feet; thence S.20°W., leaving the boundary of P.L.O. 1611, a distance of 340 feet; thence S.5°E. a distance of 350 feet to a point of intersection with the 10460 contour elevation; thence S.30°E. a distance of 2000 feet; thence S.10°E. a distance of 950 feet to a point in White Owl Creek; thence S.60°E. a distance of 1100 feet; thence S.30°E. a distance of 1600 feet; thence S.35°E. a distance of 800 feet; thence S.55°E. a distance of 600 feet; thence S.85°E. a distance of 1800 feet; thence East a distance of 2000 feet; thence S85°E. a distance of 800 feet; thence S.80°E. a distance of 500 feet; thence S.30° E. a distance of 900 feet; thence S.20° E. a distance of 800 feet; thence S.80°E. a distance of 1350 feet; thence S.30°E. a distance of 300 feet; thence S.10°E. a distance of 300 feet; thence S.15°E. a distance of 400 feet; thence S.65°W. a distance of 1300 feet to a point in the center of a small drainage; thence S39°E. a distance of 1350 feet to a point at 10262 feet in elevation; thence S.28°E. a distance of 270 feet to a point on the south township line; thence East, on and along the south township line, a distance of 6100 feet; thence N.50°W. a distance of 3100 feet; thence N.30°W. a distance of 600 feet to a point; thence N.30°W. a distance of 1000 feet; thence N.35°W. a distance of 2300 feet; thence N.30°W. a distance of 700 feet; thence North a distance of 700 feet; thence N.55°E. a distance of 300 feet to a point in a drainage; thence N.75°W. a distance of 500 feet; thence N.30°W. 1500 feet to a point in the drainage of Short Creek; thence S.30°W. a distance of 500 feet; thence S.87°W. a distance of 900 feet; thence N.75°W. a distance of 700 feet; thence N.89°W. a distance of 900 feet to a point on the 10320 contour line; thence N.65°W. a distance of 600 feet; thence West a distance of 600 feet; thence S.65°W. a distance of 600 feet; thence S.80°W. a distance of 700 feet; thence N.80°W. a distance of 900 feet; thence N.50°W. a distance of 1450 feet; thence N.40°W. a distance of 1200 feet to a point on the 10570 contour line; thence N.50°W. a distance of 900 feet; thence N.60°W. a distance of 250 feet; thence N. 45°W. a distance of 800 feet; thence N.30°W. a distance of 400 feet to a point on the 10600 elevation contour line; thence on and along said 10600 feet contour line a distance of 180 feet to a point of intersection with the east boundary of P.L.O 1611; thence South a distance of 390 feet to the Point of Beginning. T. 4 S., R. 88 W., sec. 1, beginning at the corner on the east township line common to Sections 1 and 12, thence North on and along the east township line a distance of 2665 feet; thence N.15°W. a distance of 900 feet; thence N.65°W. a distance of 700 feet; thence S.75°W. a distance of 1600 feet; thence S.65°W. a distance of 1200 feet; thence N.65°W. a distance of 1900 feet to a point on the west line of Section 1; thence South, on and along the west line of Section 1, a distance of 3380 feet; thence S.15°E a distance of 145 feet to the south line of Section 1; thence S.89°57′E, on and along the south line of Section 1, a distance of 660 feet; thence N.70°W. a distance of 200 feet; thence N. 80°E. a distance of 600 feet; thence N.88°E. a distance of 900 feet; thence N.55°E. a distance of 700 feet; thence S.85°E. 900 feet: Thence S. 65°E. a distance of 600 feet; thence S.50°E. a distance of 660 feet to a point on the south line of Section 1; thence S.89°57′E., on and along the south line of Section 1, a distance of 360 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 2, beginning at the corner common to Sections 2 and 3 on the North township line, thence S.0°09′E., on and along the west line of Section 2, a distance of 2815 feet; thence S.33°E. a distance of 2400 feet; thence S.50°E. a distance of 300 feet; thence S.83°E. a distance of 750 feet; thence N.70°E. a distance of 900 feet; thence East a distance of 400 feet; thence S.55°E. a distance of 900 feet to a point on the east line of Section 2; thence North, on and along the east line of Section 2, a distance of 3380 feet; thence N.40°W., a distance of 900 feet; thence N.60°W a distance of 1900 feet; thence N.40°W. a distance of 500 feet to a point on the north section line of Section 2; thence West, on and along the north line of Section 2, a distance of 2620 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 3, beginning at the corner common to Sections 2 and 3 on the north township line, thence West, along the north line of the township, a distance of 3480 feet; thence S.28°E. a distance of 2230 feet to a point in the Johnson Pasture Trail, Forest Service Trail Number 1852; thence N.85°E. a distance of 800 feet; thence East a distance of 400 feet; thence S.45°E. a distance of 1250 feet to a point on the east line of Section 3; thence N.0°09′W., on and along the east line of Section 3, a distance of 2815 feet to the Point of Beginning; sec. 12, beginning at a point on the north section line of Section 12 from which the corner common to Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 bears N.89°57′W. a distance of 30 feet, thence S.15°E. a distance of 255 feet; thence N.70°E. a distance of 620 feet to a point on the North line of Section 12; thence N.89°57′W., on and along the north line of Section 12, a distance of 650 feet to the Point of Beginning; and Beginning at the corner common to Sections 1 and 12 on the east township line, thence N.89°57′W., on and along the north section line of Section 12, a distance of 360 feet; thence S.50°E. a distance of 465 feet to a point on the west line of Section 12; thence North, on and along the west line of Section 12, a distance of 286 feet to the Point of Beginning.

    The areas described aggregate approximately 4,200 acres in Garfield County.

    The purpose of the withdrawal is to protect multiple outstanding features, including scenic, recreational, geologic, ecologic, wildlife, and fisheries values, in the Deep Creek canyon and corridor.

    The use of a right-of-way, interagency or cooperative management agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses that could irrevocably destroy the area's scenic and recreational values.

    No alternative sites are feasible as the described lands contain the natural resource and recreation values in need of protection.

    No water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the proposed withdrawal.

    For a period until January 14, 2016, all persons who desire to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the withdrawal application may present their views in writing to the BLM Colorado State Office at the address listed above. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Colorado State Office at the above address during regular business hours 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Notice is also hereby given that the opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the withdrawal application. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal application must submit a written request to the BLM Colorado State Office at the address listed above by January 14, 2016.

    If the authorized officer decides that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general circulation in the respective areas of the proposed withdrawal at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Records related to the application may be examined at the White River National Forest, Supervisor's Office at 900 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601.

    For a period until October 16, 2017, subject to valid existing rights, the lands described in this notice will be segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws unless the application is denied or cancelled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. The lands will remain open to other uses within the statutory authority pertinent to National Forest System lands and subject to discretionary approval.

    The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2300.

    (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3-1(b)) Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26364 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCON05000 L16100000.DU0000] Notice of Intent To Amend the Resource Management Plan for the White River Field Office and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment for Travel and Transportation Management, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA); and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA); the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) White River Field Office (WRFO), Meeker, Colorado, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for the WRFO. By this notice the WRFO is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.

    DATES:

    Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until November 16, 2015. The BLM will announce the date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/wrfo.html. The BLM must receive all comments prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later, in order for them to be included in the analysis. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation as appropriate.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the WRFO's Travel and Transportation Management RMP amendment/EA by any of the following methods:

    Web site: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/wrfo.html.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 970-989-3805.

    Mail: BLM, White River Field Office, 220 East Market St., Meeker, CO 81641.

    Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the White River FO.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Sauls, Planning and Environmental Coordinator; telephone 970-878-3855; address White River FO (see address above); email [email protected] Contact Ms. Sauls to have your name added to our mailing list. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document provides notice that the WRFO, Meeker, Colorado, intends to prepare an RMP amendment with an associated EA for the White River Planning Area, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The RMP amendment will address comprehensive transportation and travel management planning and will amend the 1997 WRFO RMP. At a minimum, the RMP amendment will consider designation of all public lands within the planning area as “open areas” for off-road vehicle use, “limited areas” for off-road vehicle use, or “closed areas” to off-road vehicle use. The RMP amendment will also consider whether to further restrict other modes of transport (e.g., mechanized and non-motorized) through area allocations and allowable use decisions. The BLM will also address whether or not exceptions should be granted within closed or limited areas and provide general direction for how to address resource conflicts during future implementation-level planning. The planning area is located in Rio Blanco, Moffat and Garfield counties, Colorado, and encompasses approximately 1.5 million acres of public land.

    The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process. BLM personnel; Federal, State and local agencies; and other stakeholders identified the following preliminary issues for the RMP amendment area:

    • Is there a recreational need for an open area?

    • Are there areas that should be managed with seasonal closures on motorized vehicle use to allow for non-motorized hunting experiences?

    • Should the White River FO provide exceptions for off-road motorized travel in limited areas for the purposes of camping, firewood gathering, or retrieval of downed big game?

    • Should the WRFO provide exceptions for physically challenged individuals to travel off-road?

    • Should the WRFO limit motorized over-the-snow travel by vehicle type, season, snow-depth, or other conditions?

    • Should Pike Ridge be managed as closed to motorized vehicles?

    • Should travel on existing energy and mineral development access roads be restricted to authorized use?

    • Should right-of-way exclusion areas also be managed as closed areas?

    • What types of uses are appropriate (e.g., motorized, mechanized, horseback) within right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas?

    • Should the WRFO implement seasonal or permanent road or trail closures in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat?

    • Should construction of new roads be allowed within lands with wilderness characteristics?

    • What types of uses are appropriate (e.g., motorized, mechanized, horseback) within lands with wilderness characteristics?

    Preliminary Planning Criteria Include

    1. The RMP amendment will be limited to making land use planning decisions specific to transportation and travel management.

    2. The BLM will designate all public lands within the planning area as open, limited, or closed areas to off-road vehicle use.

    3. Lands addressed in the RMP amendment will be surface lands managed by the BLM and will not include split-estate lands (i.e., private surface with Federal mineral estate).

    4. The RMP amendment, if approved, will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR 46 and 43 CFR 1600, the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), the BLM Travel and Transportation Management Handbook (H-8342-1), and all other applicable laws and BLM policies and guidance.

    5. Land use decisions in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat considered in the RMP amendment will be consistent with land use decisions in the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse RMP amendment.

    6. The RMP amendment will recognize valid existing rights.

    7. The BLM will use a collaborative approach to planning.

    8. The BLM will consult with Indian tribes to identify sites, areas and objectives important to their cultural and religious heritage.

    9. The BLM will coordinate and communicate with State, local and tribal governments to ensure the BLM considers provisions of pertinent plans; seek to resolve inconsistencies between State, local and tribal plans; and provide ample opportunities for State, local and tribal governments to comment on the development of the amendment.

    10. The BLM will address socioeconomic and Environmental Justice impacts of the alternatives.

    11. Land use allocations made for Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) must be consistent with the BLM Management of WSA manual (BLM Manual 6330) and with other laws, regulations and policies related to WSA management.

    12. The BLM will consider public welfare and safety when addressing fire management in the context of travel and transportation management planning.

    13. The BLM will not consider creating any new special designations, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, through this RMP amendment.

    14. The BLM will conduct implementation (route-by-route designations) travel management planning in a separate effort subsequent to completing this RMP amendment.

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, you should submit comments by the close of the 30-day scoping period or within 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.

    The BLM will use the NEPA public participation requirements to assist in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.

    The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. The BLM will give tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, due consideration. Federal, State and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:

    1. Issues to be resolved in the RMP amendment;

    2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or

    3. Issues beyond the scope of this RMP amendment.

    The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft RMP amendment/preliminary EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The BLM also encourages the public to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.

    The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, vegetation, riparian and wetlands, invasive and noxious weeds, minerals and geology, forestry, outdoor recreation, visual resource management, cultural resources and Native American concerns, paleontology, wildlife and fisheries, threatened and endangered species, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, wild horses, fire ecology and management, sociology and economics, public safety, law enforcement, and geographic information systems.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26370 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLES962000 L14200000.B0000 15X] Eastern States: Filing of Plats of Survey AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of plats of survey; Wisconsin.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will officially file the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States Office, Washington, DC at least 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, 20 M Street SE., Washington, DC 20003. Attn: Cadastral Survey. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    These surveys were requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The lands surveyed are:

    Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin T. 30 N., R. 16 E.

    The plat of survey represents the Dependent Resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and a portion of the certified survey map recorded on Page 149, volume 2, in section 26, the retracement of a portion of the eastern right of way of county road “AA” in section 35, the survey of the subdivision of sections 25, 26, 35, and 36 and the western boundary of document No. 310, recorded on Page 31, volume 3, in section 35, and the informational traverse of the northern shore and a portion of the eastern shore of Vejo Lake in section 35 in Township 30 North, Range 16 East, of the 4th Principal Meridian, in the State of Wisconsin, and was accepted September 16, 2015.

    Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin T. 51 N., R. 3 W.

    The plat of survey represents the retracement of a portion of Blocks 4 and 5 of Buffalo's Subdivision and the retracement, resurvey and monumentation of specified lot and block corners and right of way intersection points, in Blocks 1, 2, and 3 of Buffalo's Subdivision, lands held in trust for the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Government Lot 3, Section 31 of Township 51 North, Range 3 West, 4th Principle Meridian, in the State of Wisconsin, and was accepted September 1, 2015.

    We will place a copy of the plats we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information.

    If BLM receives a protest against these surveys, as shown on the plats, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

    We will not officially file the plats until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Dominica VanKoten, Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26402 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCO923000 L14400000.FR0000] Initial Classification of Public Lands and Minerals for State Indemnity Selection, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners (State) has filed a petition for classification and application to obtain public lands and mineral estate in lieu of lands to which the State was entitled but did not receive under its Statehood Act. The State did not receive title because the lands had been included in an Indian Reservation, Forest Reserve, National Forest, or other encumbrance at the time of statehood. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may classify sufficient public lands and/or minerals in Colorado for title transfer to the State to satisfy this obligation.

    DATES:

    Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the classification of lands and minerals on or before November 16, 2015. Persons asserting a claim to or interest in the lands or mineral estate described in this notice will find the requirements for filing such claims in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments concerning this Notice should be addressed to: State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John D. Beck, Chief, Branch of Lands and Realty; telephone 303-239-3882; email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Sections 2275 and 2276 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (43 U.S.C. 851 and 852), provide authority for Colorado to receive title to public lands in lieu of lands to which it was entitled under Section 7 of its statehood act of March 3, 1875, where it did not receive title because those lands had otherwise been encumbered.

    Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of June 8, 1934, clarified by the Supreme Court in Andrus v. Utah, 446 U.S. 500 (1980), requires that such public lands and/or minerals identified for proposed transfers out of Federal ownership under this authority must first be classified. The BLM is classifying these lands and minerals pursuant to 43 CFR 2400 and Section 7 of the Act of June 8, 1934 (48 Stat. 1272, as amended), 43 U.S.C. 315(f). The final acres conveyed will be determined after further environmental analysis is completed, will be based on a dollar value, and may be less than the aggregate acreage described in this notice.

    All persons who wish to submit comments on a motion of any protestant with this initial classification may present their views by any means shown under the ADDRESSES section above.

    The BLM Colorado State Director will evaluate any adverse comment and issue a notice of determination to proceed with, modify, or cancel the proposed action. In the absence of any action by the BLM State Director, this initial classification action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

    The BLM will review any comments and may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this notice will become effective on December 15, 2015.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. As provided by 43 CFR 2462.1, the BLM Colorado State Director will schedule a public hearing. The BLM will announce the public hearing date 15 days prior to the hearing.

    The lands and minerals included within this initial classification are in Chaffee, Custer, Dolores, Eagle, El Paso, Garfield, Grand, Huerfano, Jackson, Kiowa, La Plata, Moffat, Montezuma, Ouray, Park, Pueblo, Routt, San Miguel and Weld counties, Colorado, and are described as follows:

    New Mexico Principle Meridian, Colorado T. 44 N., R. 8 W., Sec. 11, lots 12 thru 14, excluding M.S. No. 9195; Sec. 13, lots 17, 28, 30, and 31; Sec. 14, E1/2SE1/4. T. 42 N., R. 13 W., Sec. 30, NE1/4NE1/4. T. 40 N., R. 14 W., Sec. 6, lot 13 and NE1/4SW1/4. T. 41 N., R. 14 W., Sec. 28, S1/2SW1/4; Sec. 29, SW1/4, NE1/4SE1/4, and S1/2SE1/4; Sec. 30, N1/2SE1/4; Sec. 31 N1/2SE1/4; Sec. 32, N1/2NW1/4 and SW1/4NW1/4. T. 43 N., R. 14 W., Sec. 2, lots 1 and 2, and S1/2NE1/4. T. 40 N., R. 15 W., Sec. 1, lots 1 thru 4; Sec. 3, lots 3 and 4; Sec. 4, lots 1 thru 4; Sec. 10, N1/2NE1/4 and E1/2NW1/4; Sec. 11, N1/2, N1/2SW1/4, and SW1/4SW1/4. T. 50 N., R 8 E., Sec. 7, NE1/4NE1/4. Sixth Principle Meridian, Colorado T. 19 S., R. 45 W., Sec. 10, S1/2NE1/4; Sec. 11, SW1/4; Sec. 14, N1/2 and SE1/4; Sec. 15, NE1/4. T. 20 S., R. 47 W., Sec. 4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4, and W1/2SE1/4; Sec. 5; Sec. 8, NE1/4NE1/4, W1/2NE1/4, SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, and NW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 9, NE1/4, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 10, SW1/4 and SW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 15, NW1/4NE1/4; Sec. 22, SE1/4NE1/4 and E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 23, S1/2NW1/4 and SW1/4; Sec. 26, W1/2NE1/4, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, and NW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 27, NE1/4NE1/4. T. 20 S., R. 48 W., Sec. 10, W1/2SW1/4; Sec. 13, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4, and W1/2SE1/4; Sec. 14, SE1/4SW1/4 and SE1/4; Sec. 15, W1/2NW1/4 and NW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 22, E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 23; Sec. 24, NW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, and SW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 26, NE1/4, NW1/4, and W1/2SW1/4; Sec. 27, E1/2NE1/4. T. 18 S., R. 61 W., Sec. 8, SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 19, lots 3 and 4, E1/2SW1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 30, lots 2 thru 4, SE1/4NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, and W1/2SE1/4; Sec. 32. T. 19 S., R. 61 W., Sec. 6; Sec. 7, E1/2NE1/4 and E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 8, W1/2NW1/4 and W1/2SW1/4; Sec. 18; Sec. 19, lots 1 thru 4, NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, and E1/2SW1/4; Sec. 20; Sec. 28, E1/2; Sec. 29, W1/2; Sec. 32, E1/2; Sec. 33. T. 20 S., R. 61 W., Sec. 4; Sec. 5, lots 1 and 2, S1/2NE1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 7, lots 2 and 3, and SE1/4SW1/4; Sec. 9, E1/2; Sec. 18, SW1/4SE1/4. T. 16 S., R. 62 W., Sec. 24, NW1/4NW1/4. T. 17 S., R. 62 W., Sec.1, lot 1 and SE1/4NE1/4; Sec. 9, SE1/4SE1/4. T 29 S., R. 69 W., Sec. 31, lots 3 and 4, NE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 32, SW1/4NW1/4, W1/2SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4. T. 29 S., R. 70 W., Sec. 35, lot 1. T. 22 S., R. 71 W., Sec. 5, lots 20 thru 23; Sec. 6, lot 13; Sec. 8, NW1/4NW1/4; Sec. 17, lot 24. T. 22 S., R. 72 W., Sec. 4, lots 41, 42, and 47, and NE1/4SE1/4, and remaining public lands in SW1/4NW1/4, W1/2SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, and SW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 5, remaining public lands in S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, SE1/4, and NW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 8, remaining public lands in SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 9, remaining public lands in W1/2; Sec. 12, lot 3 and SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 16, lot 20, lots 23 thru 36, and lot 38; Sec. 17, remaining public lands in NW1/4NE1/4; Sec. 22, N1/2NE1/4; Sec. 26, SE1/4SW1/4; Sec. 28, N1/2SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, W1/2SE1/4, and SE1/4SE1/4. T. 11 S., R. 74 W., Sec. 20, NE1/4; Sec. 21, W1/2. T. 12 S., R. 75 W., Sec. 17, SW1/4; Sec. 18, lots 1 thru 4, E1/2NW1/4, E1/2SW1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 19, lots 1 and 2, N1/2NE1/4, SW1/4NE1/4, and E1/2NW1/4. T. 12 S., R. 76 W., Sec. 13, E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 24, NE1/4. T. 13 S., R. 76 W., Sec. 4, lots 2 thru 4, SW1/4NW1/4, and NW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 5; Sec. 6, lots 6 and 7, and E1/2SW1/4. T. 12 S., R. 77 W., Sec. 23, N1/2SW1/4 and N1/2SE1/4; Sec. 25, S1/2SE1/4; Sec. 34, NW1/4SW1/4. T. 15 S., R. 78 W., Sec. 17, SW1/4NW1/4, including geothermal steam; Sec. 18, N1/2SE1/4 and SW1/4SE1/4, including geothermal steam. T. 4 S., R. 83 W., Sec. 17, lots 2 and 5, NE1/4SW1/4, and NW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 22, SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 23, lots 6 thru 8, and W1/2SW1/4. T. 7 S., R. 88 W., Sec. 7, lots 12 and 13; Sec. 8, lot 7, SW1/4NE1/4, and SE1/4NW1/4; Sec. 17, lots 3 and 19. T. 7 S., R. 89 W., Sec. 3, lot 1, SE1/4NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4SE1/4, E1/2W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, and E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 12, lot 22 and W1/2SW1/4; Sec. 13, NW1/4; T. 5 S., R. 92 W., Sec. 30, W1/2SE1/4. T. 5 S., R. 93 W., Sec. 36, NW1/4NE1/4, N1/2NW1/4, and NE1/4SW1/4. T. 1 N, R. 761/2 W., Sec. 1, lots 15 and 16; Sec. 12, lots 1 thru 6, and lots 11 and 12. T. 1 N., R 77 W., Sec. 12, E1/2NE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4. T. 3 N., R. 77 W., Sec. 25, S1/2SW1/4 and SW1/4SE1/4. T. 4 N., R. 81 W., Sec. 34, W1/2NW1/4 and NW1/4SW1/4. T. 6 N., R. 81 W., Sec. 18, lot 5. T. 3 N., R. 82 W., Sec. 26, lot 1. T. 6 N., R. 82 W., Sec. 13, SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 23, N1/2NE1/4 and SE1/4NE1/4. T. 6 N., R. 84 W., Sec. 27, SE1/4SE1/4. T. 7 N., R. 85 W., Sec. 17, W1/2NE1/4. T. 8 N., R. 85 W., Sec. 16, lots 4 and 5. T. 6 N., R. 86 W., Sec. 33, SW1/4SW1/4. T. 7 N., R. 88 W., Sec. 2, SE1/4NW1/4. T. 8 N., R. 88 W., Sec. 34, lots 12 thru 15. T. 7 N., R. 93 W., Sec. 36. The areas described aggregate 23,077 acres. The State's application requests conveyance of title to Federal mineral estate under surface owned by the State, described as follows: Sixth Principle Meridian, Colorado T. 9 N., R. 56 W., Sec. 24, SW1/4. T. 12 N., R. 56 W., Sec. 28, E1/2. T. 11 N., R. 59 W., Sec. 15, NE1/4. T. 5 N., R. 61 W., Sec. 33, SW1/4. T. 3 N., R. 62 W., Sec. 1, SE1/4. T. 17 S., R. 48 W., Sec. 18, NW1/4NE1/4. T. 21 S., R. 51 W., Sec. 35, NW1/4SW1/4 (oil and gas only). T. 22 S., R. 52 W., Sec. 15, SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SW1/4, and NW1/4SE1/4 (oil and gas only). T. 28 S., R. 69 W., Sec. 17, SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 20, NE1/4 and NE1/4NW1/4; Sec. 21, NE1/4, W1/2NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, and NE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 22, W1/2SW1/4, SE1/4SW1/4, and SW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 27, NW1/4NE1/4 and NE1/4NW1/4. T. 6 N., R. 79 W., Sec. 3, SW1/4SW1/4; Sec. 4, lots 3 and 4, SW1/4NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 5, lots 1 and 2, S1/2NE1/4, and SE1/4; Sec. 8, N1/2NE1/4, SE1/4NE1/4, and E1/2SE1/4; Sec. 9; Sec. 10, W1/2NW1/4 and W1/2SW1/4. T. 7 N., R. 79 W., Sec. 32, SE1/4; Sec. 33, W1/2SW1/4. T. 5 N., R. 88 W., Sec. 12, NW1/4 and SW1/4. T. 7 N., R. 88 W., Sec. 1, SW1/4NW1/4, W1/2SW1/4, and SE1/4SW1/4, and those portions of SE1/4NW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4, and SW1/4SE1/4 lying west of Routt County Road 80A; Sec. 2, S1/2NE1/4 and SE1/4; Sec. 10, NE1/4 and NW1/4; Sec. 11, N1/2 and SE1/4;