Federal Register Vol. 80, No.203,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 203 (October 21, 2015)

Page Range63667-63888
FR Document

80_FR_203
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 63887 - Minority Enterprise Development Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 63849 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 63849 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 63840 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 63787 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 63784 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Open Commission Meeting Thursday, October 22, 2015PDF
80 FR 63691 - Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program RevisionPDF
80 FR 63734 - Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program RevisionsPDF
80 FR 63779 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
80 FR 63781 - Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement: Peabody Street Asbestos Superfund Site, Salem, MassachusettsPDF
80 FR 63782 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
80 FR 63731 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various CommoditiesPDF
80 FR 63737 - Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 63745 - Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Turkey: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 63862 - California-Arizona Meeting of the Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group in Washington, DCPDF
80 FR 63780 - Notice of Public Meeting and Webinar and Request for Comment on the Draft Document “Technologies for Legionella Control: Scientific Literature Review”PDF
80 FR 63781 - Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 63747 - Schedule for Atlantic Shark Identification WorkshopPDF
80 FR 63741 - Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 63745 - Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 63741 - Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
80 FR 63743 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
80 FR 63786 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
80 FR 63748 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63790 - Meeting: World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (WTCHP STAC or Advisory Committee), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 63792 - Meeting: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 63791 - Meeting: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 63785 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of LicensePDF
80 FR 63678 - Safety Zone; 520 Bridge Construction, Lake Washington, Seattle, WAPDF
80 FR 63809 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute “Novel, Innovative Tools To Increase Public Awareness and Knowledge of Sickle Cell Disease Undergraduate Challenge”PDF
80 FR 63812 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Billiards TablesPDF
80 FR 63817 - Announcement of the Modification of the National Customs Automation Program Test Concerning the Automated Commercial Environment Portal Account To Establish the Exporter Portal AccountPDF
80 FR 63735 - Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts-Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005)PDF
80 FR 63822 - Implementation of the Tribal HUD-VA Supportive Housing ProgramPDF
80 FR 63717 - Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council LevelPDF
80 FR 63841 - Texas Engineering Experiment Station/Texas A&M University System Nuclear Science Center ReactorPDF
80 FR 63677 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Dubuque, IAPDF
80 FR 63752 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
80 FR 63843 - Fuel RetrievabilityPDF
80 FR 63753 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, HanfordPDF
80 FR 63845 - Geologic Trench Excavation for Paleoliquefaction Study at Garner and Stiles SitesPDF
80 FR 63846 - Procedures for MeetingsPDF
80 FR 63842 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 63749 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 63842 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 63846 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 63882 - Disciplinary Appeals Board PanelPDF
80 FR 63871 - Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyPDF
80 FR 63783 - Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC)PDF
80 FR 63881 - Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the San Francisco VA Medical Center Long Range Development Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, San Francisco VA Medical CenterPDF
80 FR 63754 - City of Rochester, Minnesota Board of Public Utilities; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 63761 - Empire State Hydro 301, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 63766 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 63759 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-914); Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63667 - Commencement of Assessment of Annual ChargesPDF
80 FR 63755 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-732); Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63768 - Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable; Public Service Company of New Mexico, Order Accepting Notice of Change in Status, Rejecting, Without Prejudice, Request for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Providing Clarification on Submitting Delivered Price Test Analyses and Simultaneous Transmission Import Limit StudiesPDF
80 FR 63757 - Mojave Water Agency; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
80 FR 63807 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 63809 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 63808 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 63759 - San Gorgonio Westwinds II-Windustries, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 63754 - Tallbear Seville LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 63753 - Seville Solar Two LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 63765 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 63766 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 63755 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 63762 - Seville Solar One LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 63762 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 63763 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 63763 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 63764 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 63758 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 63761 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 63756 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
80 FR 63767 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 63863 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 63869 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 63873 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to Executive Order 12978PDF
80 FR 63873 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
80 FR 63872 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
80 FR 63832 - Notice of Public Meetings, Southwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council Oil and Gas Sub-GroupPDF
80 FR 63830 - Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment; Kaufman Properties, Thurston County, WashingtonPDF
80 FR 63787 - Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC and Orthopaedic Associates of Reading, Ltd.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 63785 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 63740 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 63848 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 63847 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63832 - Notice of Open Public Meeting and Teleconference for the National Park Service Alaska Region's Subsistence Resource Commission ProgramPDF
80 FR 63835 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Chattem Chemicals, Inc.PDF
80 FR 63737 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee To Begin Planning a Series of Public Hearings To Study Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in IndianaPDF
80 FR 63859 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 2.4, Mandatory Participation in Testing of Backup SystemsPDF
80 FR 63857 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 2.4, Mandatory Participation in Testing of Backup SystemsPDF
80 FR 63855 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Rule 2.4, Mandatory Participation in Testing of Backup SystemsPDF
80 FR 63849 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 2.4, Mandatory Participation in Testing of Backup SystemsPDF
80 FR 63852 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Representations Regarding the Names and Principal Investments of Certain WBI SMID Funds Currently Listed and Traded on the Exchange Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
80 FR 63838 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Halo Pharmaceutical, Inc.PDF
80 FR 63836 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cerilliant CorporationPDF
80 FR 63797 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection ActPDF
80 FR 63804 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals ProcessesPDF
80 FR 63799 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Food and Drug Administration's Campaign To Reduce Tobacco Use Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Young AdultsPDF
80 FR 63835 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cody Laboratories, Inc.PDF
80 FR 63835 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex Charles CityPDF
80 FR 63839 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH-Sigma Aldrich Co LLCPDF
80 FR 63833 - Certain Welded Line Pipe From Korea; Termination of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 63840 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Annuity Broker Declaration FormPDF
80 FR 63862 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 63790 - SES Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 63839 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Sequestered Juror Information FormPDF
80 FR 63833 - Silicomanganese From Australia; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty InvestigationPDF
80 FR 63671 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Coronary Vascular Physiologic Simulation Software DevicePDF
80 FR 63878 - Agency Information Collection (Address Request Authorized by “Access to Financial Records”) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63877 - Agency Information Collection (Award Attachment for Certain Children With Disabilities Born of Vietnam Veterans) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63875 - Agency Information Collection (Former Prisoner of War Medical History) Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63880 - Agency Information Collection (Former Prisoner of War Medical History) Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63883 - Agency Information Collection (VA MATIC Enrollment/Change) (29-0165) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63877 - Proposed Information Collection (Monthly Record of Training and Wages) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63879 - Proposed Information Collection (Architect-Engineer Fee Proposal, VA Form 10-6298, Daily Log (Contract Progress Report-Formal Contract), VA Form 10-6131, and Supplement Contract Progress Report, VA Form 10-61001a) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63879 - Agency Information Collection: Request for Certificate of Veteran Status Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63878 - Proposed Information Collection (Pre-Discharge Compensation Claim) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63876 - Proposed Information Collection (VA/DOD Joint Disability Evaluation Claim) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63875 - Proposed Information Collection (Application for Benefits for Certain Children With Disabilities Born of Vietnam and Certain Korea Service Veterans) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63883 - Proposed Information Collection (Loan Analysis); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63874 - Proposed Information Collection (Verification of VA Benefits) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63882 - Proposed Information Collection (Income Verification) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63884 - Proposed Information Collection (Claim for Repurchase of Loan); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 63880 - Agency Information Collection (Supplemental Information for Change of Program or Re-Enrollment After Unsatisfactory Attendance, Conduct or Progress) (VA Form 22-8873) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 63806 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Inspection by Accredited Persons ProgramPDF
80 FR 63793 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3601PDF
80 FR 63804 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Administrative Practices and Procedures; Formal Evidentiary Public HearingPDF
80 FR 63795 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Food Additive Petitions and Investigational Food Additive ExemptionsPDF
80 FR 63802 - Manufacturing Site Change Supplements: Content and Submission; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 63808 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 63786 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 63787 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 63695 - Unified Registration SystemPDF
80 FR 63676 - Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation AreasPDF
80 FR 63674 - Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation AreasPDF
80 FR 63683 - Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 63815 - Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR) Test of Automated Entry Summary Types 51 and 52 and Certain Modes of TransportationPDF
80 FR 63680 - Potassium Salts of Hops Beta Acids; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 63686 - Pyrimethanil; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 63720 - Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices Under the Fair Housing ActPDF
80 FR 63715 - Immediate, Expedited, and Private Disaster Assistance Loan ProgramsPDF
80 FR 63807 - Meeting Notice for the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood PartnershipsPDF
80 FR 63832 - Notice of Designation of Potential Wilderness as Wilderness, Fire Island National SeashorePDF

Issue

80 203 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Contents Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 63791-63792 2015-26757 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, 63792-63793 2015-26758 World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 63790-63791 2015-26759 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Indiana Advisory Committee, 63737 2015-26681 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Upper Mississippi River, Dubuque, IA, 63677-63678 2015-26745 Quarterly Listings: Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas, 63674-63677 2015-26623 2015-26624 Safety Zones: 520 Bridge Construction, Lake Washington, Seattle, WA, 63678-63680 2015-26754 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 63737-63740 2015-26776
Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts -- Further Implementation; Extension of Comment Period and Meeting Announcement, 63735-63736 2015-26749 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 63749-63752 2015-26738
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Halo Pharmaceutical, Inc., 63838-63839 2015-26675 Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cody Laboratories, Inc., Cody, WY, 63835 2015-26670 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cerilliant Corp., Round Rock, TX, 63836-63838 2015-26674 Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH -- Sigma Aldrich Co. LLC, 63839 2015-26668 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cambrex Charles City, 63835-63836 2015-26669 Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 63835 2015-26682 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 63752-63753 2015-26744 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford; Correction, 63753 2015-26742
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance: Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a--1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-o--1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-, 63683-63686 2015-26617 Potassium Salts of Hops Beta Acids, 63680-63683 2015-26600 Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions: Texas, 63691-63695 2015-26789 Pesticide Tolerances: Pyrimethanil, 63686-63691 2015-26596 PROPOSED RULES Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions: Texas, 63734 2015-26783 Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 63731-63734 2015-26779 NOTICES Administrative Cost Recovery Settlements under CERCLA: Peabody Street Asbestos Superfund Site, Salem, MA, 63781-63782 2015-26781 Meetings: Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, 63783 2015-26732 Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, 63781 2015-26770 Technologies for Legionella Control -- Scientific Literature Review, 63780-63781 2015-26771 Proposed Consent Decrees, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 63779-63780, 63782-63783 2015-26780 2015-26782 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63784-63785 2015-26799 Radio Broadcasting Services: AM or FM Proposals to Change the Community of License, 63785 2015-26756 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Community Banking, 63785-63786 2015-26689 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Commencement of Assessment of Annual Charges, 63667-63671 2015-26726 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 63755-63756, 63759-63761 2015-26725 2015-26727 Combined Filings, 63755, 63758-63759, 63761-63768 2015-26701 2015-26703 2015-26704 2015-26705 2015-26706 2015-26707 2015-26708 2015-26709 2015-26711 2015-26712 2015-26713 2015-26728 Filings: Board of Public Utilities, City of Rochester, MN, 63754 2015-26730 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: San Gorgonio Westwinds II-Windustries, LLC, 63759 2015-26716 Seville Solar One, LLC, 63762-63763 2015-26710 Seville Solar Two, LLC, 63753-63754 2015-26714 Tallbear Seville, LLC, 63754-63755 2015-26715 Market-Based Rate Authorizations; Price Test Analyses; Trasmission Import Studies: Public Service Company of New Mexico, 63768-63778 2015-26724 Preliminary Determinations of Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities and Motions to Intervene: Mojave Water Agency, 63757-63758 2015-26723 Preliminary Permit Applications: Empire State Hydro 301, LLC, 63761 2015-26729 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 63756-63757 2015-26702 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 63786 2015-26761 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Unified Registration System, 63695-63714 2015-26625 NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 63863-63869 2015-26700 Vision, 63869-63871 2015-26699 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 63787 2015-26628 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 63786 2015-26629 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63787 2015-26857 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC, and Orthopaedic Associates of Reading, Ltd., 63787-63790 2015-26690 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Habitat Conservation Plan, Kaufman Properties, Thurston County, WA, 63830-63832 2015-26692 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Coronary Vascular Physiologic Simulation Software Device, 63671-63674 2015-26658 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Administrative Practices and Procedures; Formal Evidentiary Public Hearing, 63804 2015-26639 Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping for Dietary Supplements as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, 63797-63799 2015-26673 Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes, 63804-63806 2015-26672 Evaluation of the Campaign to Reduce Tobacco Use Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Young Adults, 63799-63802 2015-26671 Food Additive Petitions and Investigational Food Additive Exemptions, 63795-63796 2015-26638 Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet, 63793-63794 2015-26640 Medical Devices; Inspection by Accredited Persons Program, 63806-63807 2015-26641 Guidance: Manufacturing Site Change Supplements -- Content and Submission, 63802-63804 2015-26637 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 63873-63874 2015-26697 2015-26698 Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act; Additional Designations, 63872-63873 2015-26696 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES SES Performance Review Board, 63790 2015-26661 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 63807 2015-26407
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices under the Fair Housing Act, 63720-63731 2015-26587 NOTICES Implementation of the Tribal HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program, 63822-63830 2015-26748 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee, 63740-63741 2015-26688 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China, 63741-63743, 63745-63747 2015-26764 2015-26765 Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Turkey, 63745 2015-26775 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 63743-63745 2015-26762 Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 63741 2015-26763 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Silicomanganese from Australia, 63833-63834 2015-26659 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Welded Line Pipe from Korea, 63833 2015-26667 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annuity Broker Declaration Form, 63840 2015-26666 Sequestered Juror Information Form, 63839-63840 2015-26660
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Southwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council Oil and Gas Sub-Group, 63832 2015-26693 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 63808 2015-26630 National Cancer Institute, 63807-63808 2015-26721 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 63808-63809 2015-26719 National Institute on Aging, 63809 2015-26720 Requirements and Registration: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute -- Novel, Innovative Tools to Increase Public Awareness and Knowledge of Sickle Cell Disease Undergraduate Challenge, 63809-63812 2015-26753 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 63748-63749 2015-26760 Meetings: Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, 63747-63748 2015-26767 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Alaska Region's Subsistence Resource Commission, 63832-63833 2015-26683 Wilderness Designations: Fire Island National Seashore, 63832 2015-26246 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63840-63841 2015-26873 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Geologic Trench Excavation for Paleoliquefaction Study at Garner and Stiles Sites, 63845-63846 2015-26741 Guidance: Fuel Retrievability, 63843-63845 2015-26743 License Renewals: Texas Engineering Experiment Station/Texas A and M University System Nuclear Science Center Reactor, 63841-63842 2015-26746 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 63846 2015-26736 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels, 63842 2015-26737 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 63842-63843 2015-26739 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Procedures, 63846-63847 2015-26740 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 63847-63848 2015-26684 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 63848-63849 2015-26685 2015-26686 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63849 2015-26889 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Minority Enterprise Development Week (Proc. 9350), 63885-63888 2015-26966 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 63849 2015-26901 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 63849-63852 2015-26677 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 63855-63857 2015-26678 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 63859-63862 2015-26680 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 63857-63859 2015-26679 NYSE Arca, Inc., 63852-63855 2015-26676 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Immediate, Expedited, and Private Disaster Assistance Loan Programs, 63715-63717 2015-26532 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 63862 2015-26662 2015-26663 Social Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level, 63717-63719 2015-26747 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group; California-Arizona, 63862-63863 2015-26773 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Temporary Trackage Rights Exemptions: Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC from Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 63871-63872 2015-26733 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Final Determinations: Certain Billiards Tables, 63812-63815 2015-26752 Modification of National Customs Automation Programs: Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue Test of Automated Entry Summary Types 51 and 52 and Certain Modes of Transportation, 63815-63817 2015-26608 National Customs Automation Program Test: Automated Commercial Environment Portal Account to Establish the Exporter Portal Account, 63817-63822 2015-26751 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 63878-63879 2015-26651 2015-26657 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Benefits for Certain Children with Disabilities Born of Vietnam and Certain Korea Service Veterans, 63875 2015-26647 Award Attachment for Certain Children with Disabilities Born of Vietnam Veterans, 63877-63878 2015-26656 Claim for Repurchase of Loan, 63884 2015-26643 Former Prisoner of War Medical History, 63875-63876, 63880-63881 2015-26654 2015-26655 Income Verification, 63882 2015-26644 Loan Analysis, 63883 2015-26646 Monthly Record of Training and Wages, 63877 2015-26652 Pre-Discharge Compensation Claim, 63878 2015-26649 Request for Certificate of Veteran Status, 63879-63880 2015-26650 Supplemental Information for Change of Program or Re-enrollment After Unsatisfactory Attendance, Conduct or Progress, 63880 2015-26642 VA MATIC Enrollment/Change, 63883-63884 2015-26653 VA/DOD Joint Disability Evaluation Claim, 63876-63877 2015-26648 Verification of VA Benefits, 63874-63875 2015-26645 Disciplinary Appeals Board Panel; Roster Availability, 63882-63883 2015-26734 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Francisco VA Medical Center Long Range Development Plan; Record of Decision, 63881-63882 2015-26731 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 63885-63888 2015-26966 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.

80 203 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 11 [Docket No. RM15-18-000, Order No. 815] Commencement of Assessment of Annual Charges AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its regulations to modify when the Commission will commence assessing annual charges to hydropower licensees and exemptees, other than state or municipal entities, with respect to licenses and exemptions authorizing unconstructed projects and new capacity. Specifically, the Commission will commence assessing annual charges on the date by which the licensee or exemptee is required to commence construction of an unconstructed project or new capacity, rather than on the date that project construction actually begins. The final rule provides administrative efficiency and promotes certainty among licensees, exemptees, and Commission staff as to when annual charges will commence.

DATES:

Effective: December 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara DiJohn (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8671, [email protected]. Norman Richardson (Technical Information), Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219, [email protected]. Order No. 815 Final Rule Table of Contents Paragraph
  • No.
  • I. Background 1 II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 5 III. Discussion 11 IV. Regulatory Requirements 21 A. Information Collection Statement 21 B. Environmental Analysis 22 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 23 D. Document Availability 28 E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 31
    Order No. 815 Final Rule (Issued October 15, 2015) I. Background 1. On May 14, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to revise its regulations governing the commencement of assessment of annual charges for non-municipal hydropower licensees and exemptees.1 As explained in the NOPR, section 10(e)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),2 and section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986,3 require the Commission to, among other things, collect annual charges from licensees in order to reimburse the United States for the costs of administering Part I of the FPA. The Commission assesses these annual charges against licensees and exemptees of projects with more than 1.5 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity under section 11.1 of its regulations.4

    1Commencement of Assessment of Annual Charges, 151 FERC ¶ 61,115 (2015). The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2015. 80 FR 29,562.

    2 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1) (2012).

    3 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2012).

    4 18 CFR 11.1 (2015).

    2. Currently, for exemptions and original licenses for unconstructed projects, the Commission begins assessing administrative annual charges on the date project construction starts.5 For new capacity authorized by a relicense 6 or an amendment of a license or exemption, the Commission begins assessing annual charges on the date that the construction to enable such capacity starts.7 This final rule affects only projects with respect to which annual charges are assessed when project construction starts. It does not address state or municipal projects, projects with an installed capacity of 1.5 MW or less, or constructed projects without newly authorized capacity.8

    5Id. (c)(5).

    6 We use the term “relicense” to refer to any new or subsequent license.

    7 18 CFR 11.1(c)(5) (2015). We refer to the addition of capacity and a reduction of capacity (on occasion, capacity is reduced as a result of construction, in which case annual charges are lowered) as “new capacity.”

    8 Licensees and exemptees that are state or municipal entities are assessed annual charges when project operation commences. 18 CFR 11.1(d)(6) (2015). As noted above, the Commission does not assess annual charges with respect to projects with installed capacity of less than or equal to 1.5 MW. 18 CFR 11.1(b) (2015). Constructed, operating projects where no new capacity is being authorized are assessed annual charges beginning on the effective date of the license or exemption. See 18 CFR 11.1(c)(5) (2015).

    3. Original licenses for unconstructed projects require a licensee to start construction no later than two years from the effective date of the license, as required by section 13 of the FPA.9 Generally, exemptions and operating projects where additional capacity is authorized similarly require that project construction 10 or construction of additional capacity 11 commence within two years of the order authorizing such construction.

    9See 16 U.S.C. 806 (2012).

    10See 18 CFR 4.94(c) and 4.106(c) (2015) (including in exemptions standard Article 3 to allow the Commission to revoke an exemption if actual construction of the proposed generating facilities has not begun within two years).

    11See e.g., Northern States Power Co., 138 FERC ¶ 62,022, at ordering para. (E) (2012) (directing licensee to start construction of additional authorized capacity within two years).

    4. In many instances, construction of authorized facilities does not begin by the set deadline. For original licenses, section 13 of the FPA provides that the Commission may grant an extension of the deadline for good cause shown, but only once and for no more than two additional years. These limitations of FPA section 13 do not apply to relicenses, exemptions, and amendments. From 2010 through 2014, the Commission granted extensions of the start-of-construction deadline (1) for original licenses and relicenses 17 times, or an average of 3.4 times per year; (2) for exemptions 2 times, or on average 0.4 times per year; and (3) for license amendments authorizing new capacity 6 times, or an average of 1.2 extensions per year.12

    12 No extensions of the start-of-construction deadline were issued for exemption amendments during this period, however, exemptees rarely file amendment applications requesting authorization to increase exemption capacity.

    II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 5. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise section 11.1(c)(5) of its regulations regarding when it will commence assessing annual charges with respect to hydropower licenses, exemptions, and amendments authorizing unconstructed projects and new capacity. Specifically, the Commission proposed to commence assessing annual charges two years from the effective date of an order issuing a license, exemption, or an amendment authorizing additional capacity, rather than on the date project construction starts. 6. In support of the proposed rule, the Commission anticipated that the change would provide administrative efficiency and foster certainty among licensees, exemptees, and Commission staff as to when annual charges will commence. The NOPR explained that licensees and exemptees will no longer need to notify the Commission when project construction starts for the purpose of assessing annual charges and, in turn, the Commission will not have to contact the licensee or exemptee for that purpose. 7. While licensees and exemptees who begin construction expeditiously will benefit, the NOPR also acknowledged that the proposed change would adversely affect those licensees and exemptees that do not start construction within two years. The NOPR proposed that annual charges would be assessed two years from the effective date of an order issuing a license, exemption, or an amendment authorizing additional capacity, regardless of when actual construction commences. As noted above, on average, 5 (3.4 licenses + 0.4 exemptions + 1.2 license amendments) affected projects each year receive extensions of the start-of-construction deadline.13

    13 In rare circumstances, the Commission may stay the effective date of a license, in which case the assessment of annual charges would also be stayed.

    8. The NOPR also acknowledged that licensees and exemptees of projects whose license or exemption is terminated for failure to timely commence construction also may be adversely affected. If a licensee fails to start construction within two years of its license's effective date or as extended by the Commission, the Commission must terminate the license pursuant to section 13 of the FPA.14 Similarly, as noted above, standard exemption Article 3 states that the Commission may revoke an exemption if the exemptee fails to start construction within the time prescribed by the Commission. From 2010 through 2014, the Commission terminated one license, or an average of 0.2 licenses per year, and no exemptions. Therefore, in the NOPR, we estimated that annually 0.2 licenses would be assessed annual charges beginning two years after a license's effective date until the license is terminated for failure to construct.

    14 16 U.S.C. 806 (2012).

    9. In sum, the proposed rule estimated that, on average, 5.2 (5 extensions + 0.2 terminations) licensees and/or exemptees per year would begin paying annual charges earlier than would be the case under the current regulations. 10. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from two entities. On July 20, 2015, FFP New Hydro, LLC filed comments on behalf of its subsidiary project companies and together with its manager Rye Development, LLC (collectively, FFP New Hydro). On July 21, 2015, the National Hydropower Association (NHA) filed comments. The NOPR's proposal, the comments received, and the Commission's determination are discussed below. III. Discussion 11. FFP New Hydro contends that the change contemplated by the NOPR would increase the cost of hydropower development and discourage investment in critical infrastructure, stating that developers often take two years following issuance of a license, exemption, or amendment to secure financing and often apply for extensions of time to commence construction.15 In this vein, FFP New Hydro claims that the proposed change would discourage new hydropower development and is therefore contrary to the inherent goals of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013.16 FFP New Hydro further asserts that developers, if faced with the prospect of being assessed annual charges before construction, will be forced to surrender their licenses more frequently.17 For these reasons, FFP New Hydro advocates that the Commission continue to commence assessment of annual charges when project construction begins.18

    15 FFP New Hydro at 2.

    16 Pub. L. 113-23, 27 Stat. 493. Id. at 4-5.

    17 FFP New Hydro at 5.

    18Id. at 6.

    12. NHA asserts that the proposed change would not further the administrative efficiency goals set forth in the NOPR, but would instead increase the administrative burden on Commission staff, licensees, and exemptees.19 As an example of a new administrative burden that might result, NHA posits that the Commission would need to implement a procedure for issuing refunds for any payment of annual charges by a licensee or exemptee who ultimately fails to commence construction.20 NHA further claims that the assessment of annual charges before project construction would negatively impact the hydropower industry and quell future investment in hydropower development, especially pumped storage projects.21 Finally, NHA argues that the change would run counter to recent initiatives intended to stimulate and streamline hydropower development.22

    19 NHA at 2-4.

    20Id. at 4.

    21Id. at 4-7.

    22Id. at 7-8 (referencing the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-121, 128 Stat. 1193, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, Pub. L. 113-23, 27 Stat. 493, and The President's Climate Action Plan, Executive Office of the President (June 25, 2013), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.)

    13. NHA recommends that the Commission continue to commence assessment of annual charges on the date project construction begins. Alternatively, NHA proposes that the Commission assess annual charges when project operation commences. 14. Both FFP New Hydro and NHA contend that the phase of project development that exists between issuance of a license, exemption, or amendment and the start of construction is a critical period. While the Commission recognizes the time constraints and financial obstacles faced by licensees and exemptees, the licensing and pre-construction phases also translate to a time-consuming and labor-intensive period for Commission staff.23 During this time, the Commission's costs related to a particular project begin to accrue, but are passed along in the form of annual charges to the pool of non-municipal licensees and exemptees for operating projects that are already subject to assessment of annual charges.

    23 The Commission's considerable involvement during the licensing and pre-construction phases of development is underscored by FFP New Hydro's statement that “they have filed hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation with the Commission, are in regular and constant communication with the Commission staff, and will continue to be so throughout the licensing, post-licensing, and construction stages.” FFP New Hydro at 5.

    15. In effect, the Commission's costs during the labor-intensive periods that surround issuance of a license, exemption, or amendment authorizing new capacity are shouldered by the existing pool of licensees and exemptees.24 The change envisioned by the NOPR, as modified in this final rule, strives to strike a reasonable balance that creates certainty for licensees and exemptees as to when assessment of annual charges will commence, promotes administrative efficiency for Commission staff by establishing a more clear point at which to begin assessing annual charges, and lessens the burden on the existing pool of licensees and exemptees currently bearing the burden of paying annual charges for the administration of all pre-construction projects. Moreover, this change will generate cost-saving benefits over the current regulations for licensees and exemptees who act expeditiously by commencing construction prior to the date triggering assessment of annual charges.

    24 FFP New Hydro states that the assessment of annual charges historically has commenced at the start of construction. To the contrary, prior to 1995, annual charges were assessed from the date of issuance of the license, exemption, or amendment authorizing new capacity. 18 CFR 11.1 (1994). See Charges and Fees for Hydroelectric Projects, Order No. 576, 60 FR 15,040 (March 22, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,016 (cross-referenced at 70 FERC ¶ 61,293) (1995) (amending section 11.1 of the regulations to defer annual charges until construction started).

    16. In its comments, NHA speculated that the proposed change would actually add new administrative burdens by requiring the Commission to create and implement a procedure to issue refunds for any payment of annual charges by a licensee or exemptee who ultimately fails to commence construction. This speculation is misguided. Because the assessment of annual charges will be contingent on the expiration of a set period of time rather than on whether the start of construction ultimately occurs, there is no need for the Commission to develop a program to handle refunds. 17. While no refunds will be offered, if a licensee or exemptee successfully demonstrates an inability to pay at the time assessment of annual charges commences, the availability of payment plans 25 may provide a measure of relief to certain licensees or exemptees assessed annual charges before construction, but who anticipate being able to settle their account once project financing is secured or generation begins.26

    25 A payment plan request would be directed to, and ultimately coordinated by, the Commission's Office of the Executive Director, Revenue and Receivables Branch. The Commission's Chief Financial Officer would determine whether or not to grant a payment plan request.

    26 We note that the inability of a licensee or exemptee to pay annual charges may call into question that licensee or exemptee's ability to bring a hydropower project to fruition. For example, while the amount varies based on the type of project and its annual generation, the administrative annual charges amount for a 5-MW conventional project (with an annual energy output of zero), or a 5-MW exemption, might be expected to be in the area of $8,000, an amount any financially-viable licensee should be able to pay. Although pumped storage projects and large, conventional projects are often responsible for paying much more substantial annual charge amounts, it is also the case that, if these projects are to be successfully developed, these licensees will need to have access to greater amounts of capital than do licensees of small projects.

    18. Both FFP New Hydro and NHA raised concerns that the effect of this final rule might discourage hydropower development. NHA indicated that pumped storage projects would be particularly affected by the changes contemplated in the NOPR. In light of these concerns, the Commission has decided to set the commencement of assessment of annual charges to track the start-of-construction deadline for any license or exemption authorizing an unconstructed project that receives an extension of the start-of-construction deadline.27 In other words, any license or exemption for an unconstructed project that receives an extension of the start-of-construction deadline will be assessed annual charges beginning at the expiration of the start-of-construction deadline, as extended by the Commission (i.e., no longer than four years after the issuance date of the license or exemption authorizing an unconstructed project). A four-year period is consistent with the deadlines established by section 13 and, accordingly, will give developers a reasonable charge-free period in which to secure financing.

    27 Even with an extension of the start-of-construction deadline, in no case would assessment of annual charges commence later than four years after the issuance of a license or exemption authorizing an unconstructed project.

    19. Similarly, for any license, exemption, or amendment authorizing additional capacity that receives an extension of the start-of-construction deadline, the Commission will begin assessing annual charges upon the expiration of the deadline to start construction as extended by the Commission. In light of the reasons discussed above, and those identified in the NOPR, the Commission has modified the NOPR's proposal to revise section 11.1(c)(5) of its regulations and will begin assessing annual charges on the date by which a licensee or exemptee is required to commence construction of an unconstructed project or new capacity, rather than on the date project construction actually begins. We believe that these modifications to the Final Rule substantially address the concerns raised in response to the NOPR, while also continuing to encourage hydropower development. 20. NHA has requested that the Commission not apply the revised regulations to all current licensees, exemptees, and applicants.28 We grant the request in part. For any license, exemption, or amendment issued by the Commission prior to the effective date of this final rule, we agree that the assessment of annual charges should remain the start of construction. The revised regulations, however, will apply to any license, exemption, or amendment that is issued after the revised regulation's effective date. Thus, any application for a license, exemption, or amendment that is pending before the Commission when this final rule becomes effective will not be shielded from its effects. Based on the phase and complexity of the application process, an application could be before the Commission for several years before a determination is issued. Thus, using two separate standards, contingent on the date an application was filed, could potentially persist for several years, could lead to confusion, and would place an undue administrative burden on staff. Therefore, the revision to section 11.1(c)(5) of the Commission's regulations will apply to any applicable license, exemption, or amendment issued on or after the effective date of this final rule.

    28 NHA at 9.

    IV. Regulatory Requirements A. Information Collection Statement 21. The Paperwork Reduction Act 29 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements contained in final rules published in the Federal Register. 30 The final rule discussed above does not impose or alter existing reporting or recordkeeping requirements on applicable entities as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act.31 Therefore, the Commission will submit this final rule to OMB for informational purposes only.

    29 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (2012).

    30See 5 CFR 1320.12 (2015).

    31 44 U.S.C. 3502(2)-(3) (2012).

    B. Environmental Analysis 22. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.32 Commission actions concerning annual charges are categorically exempt from this requirement.33

    32Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    33See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(11) (2015).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 34 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed and final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule while minimizing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.35 In the NOPR, we certified that the proposed regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    34 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).

    35 5 U.S.C. 603(c) (2012).

    24. As explained in the NOPR, the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.36 The SBA revised its size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 2014) from a standard based on megawatt-hours to a standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates.37 Under SBA's current size standards, a hydroelectric generator is small if, including its affiliates, it employs 500 or fewer people.38 The Commission, however, currently does not require information regarding the number of individuals employed by hydroelectric generators to administer Part I of the FPA, and therefore, is unable to estimate the number of small entities using the new SBA definitions. Regardless, the Commission anticipates that this final rule will affect few small hydroelectric generators.

    36 13 CFR 121.101 (2015).

    37 SBA Final Rule on “Small Business Size Standards: Utilities,” 78 FR 77,343 (Dec. 23, 2013).

    38 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities (2015).

    25. As noted earlier, this rulemaking will only affect non-state or municipal licensed projects with an installed capacity exceeding 1.5 MW that are unconstructed or have newly authorized capacity. From 2010 through 2014, the Commission issued on average 3.6 original licenses and 0.4 exemptions per year authorizing unconstructed projects to affected licensees and exemptees, and 1.6 relicenses and 5 license amendments per year authorizing new capacity. In the NOPR, we estimated that, in sum, on average a total of 10.6 licensees and exemptees may be affected by the proposed rule annually. 26. Of the 10.6 total entities, only those that do not start construction prior to the set deadline to commence construction (as may be extended) will be negatively affected by the acceleration of annual charges. Previously, the NOPR estimated that 5.2 licensees and/or exemptees per year may be negatively affected by the changes contemplated in the NOPR for failing to start construction within two years. However, based on the modifications reflected in the final rule,39 we estimate that zero licensees and/or exemptees will be negatively affected by failing to start construction by the set deadline, as may be extended by the Commission.40 Moreover, small entities that would otherwise start construction before the date by which they are required to commence construction of an unconstructed project or new capacity will benefit from the final rule as it delays the commencement of assessment of annual charges until the established deadline to start construction.

    39See supra paragraphs 18-19.

    40 Conceivably, a licensee or exemptee that has received an extension of the start-of-construction deadline might be responsible for paying annual charges that began to accrue four years after the issuance date of the license or exemption, but prior to termination of the license, or revocation of the exemption, for failure to commence construction. However, this would be rare.

    27. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Document Availability 28. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 29. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 30. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected] E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 31. This regulation is effective December 21, 2015. The Commission has determined, with concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.41 This rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    41 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2012).

    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 11

    Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 11, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 11—ANNUAL CHARGES UNDER PART I OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT 1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    2. Revise § 11.1(c)(5) to read as follows:
    § 11.1 Costs of administration.

    (c) * * *

    (5) For unconstructed projects, the assessments begin on the date by which the licensee or exemptee is required to commence project construction, or as that deadline may be extended, but in no case longer than four years after the issuance date of the license or exemption. For constructed projects, the assessments begin on the effective date of the license or exemption, except for any new capacity authorized therein. The assessments for new authorized capacity at licensed or exempted projects begin on the date by which the licensee or exemptee is required to commence construction of the new capacity. In the event that assessments begin during a fiscal year, the charges will be prorated.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26726 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 870 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3387] Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Coronary Vascular Physiologic Simulation Software Device AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

    DATES:

    This order is effective October 21, 2015. The classification was applicable on November 26, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shawn Forrest, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1326, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

    Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

    In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

    On November 6, 2013, HeartFlow, Inc. submitted a request for classification of the FFRCT v.1.4 under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

    In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on November 26, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.1415.

    Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order.

    The device is assigned the generic name coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device, and it is identified as a prescription device that provides simulated functional assessment of blood flow in the coronary vascular system using data extracted from medical device imaging to solve algorithms and yield simulated metrics of physiologic information (e.g., blood flow, coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, myocardial perfusion). A coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device is intended to generate results for use and review by a qualified clinician.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device, as well as the mitigation measures required to mitigate these risks, in table 1.

    Table 1—Coronary Vascular Physiologic Simulation Software Device Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure False negative results improperly indicating diseased vessel as low probability for significant disease leads to delay of further evaluation/treatment Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis.
  • Non-clinical performance testing.
  • False positive results improperly indicating diseased vessel as high probability for significant disease leads to incorrect patient management Clinical testing. Delayed delivery of results leading to delay of further evaluation/treatment Consistency (repeatability/reproducibility) evaluation.
  • Labeling.
  • Failure to properly interpret device results leads to incorrect patient management Human factors testing.
  • Labeling.
  • FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:

    • Adequate software verification and validation based on comprehensive hazard analysis with identification of appropriate mitigations, must be performed including:

    ○ Full characterization of the technical parameters of the software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used to model the vascular anatomy;

    Adequate description of the expected impact of all applicable image acquisition hardware features and characteristics on performance and any associated minimum specifications;

    ○ Adequate consideration of privacy and security issues in the system design; and

    Adequate mitigation of the impact of failure of any subsystem components (e.g., signal detection and analysis, data storage, system communications and cybersecurity) with respect to incorrect patient reports and operator failures.

    • Adequate non-clinical performance testing must be provided to demonstrate the validity of computational modeling methods for flow measurement.

    • Clinical data supporting the proposed intended use must be provided, including the following:

    ○ Output measure(s) must be compared to a clinically acceptable method and must adequately represent the simulated measure(s) the device provides in an accurate and reproducible manner;

    ○ Clinical utility of the device measurement accuracy must be demonstrated by comparison to that of other available diagnostic tests (e.g., from literature analysis);

    ○ Statistical performance of the device within clinical risk strata (e.g., age, relevant comorbidities, disease stability) must be reported;

    ○ The dataset must be adequately representative of the intended use population for the device (e.g., patients, range of vessel sizes, imaging device models). Any selection criteria or limitations of the samples must be fully described and justified;

    ○ Statistical methods must consider the predefined endpoints;

    Estimates of probabilities of incorrect results must be provided for each endpoint;

    Where multiple samples from the same patient are used, statistical analysis must not assume statistical independence without adequate justification;

    The report must provide appropriate confidence intervals for each performance metric;

    ○ Sensitivity and specificity must be characterized across the range of available measurements;

    ○ Agreement of the simulated measure(s) with clinically acceptable measure(s) must be assessed across the full range of measurements;

    ○ Comparison of the measurement performance must be provided across the range of intended image acquisition hardware; and

    ○ If the device uses a cutoff threshold or operates across a spectrum of disease, it must be established prior to validation and it must be justified as to how it was determined and clinically validated.

    • Adequate validation must be performed and controls implemented to characterize and ensure consistency (i.e., repeatability and reproducibility) of measurement outputs;

    ○ Acceptable incoming image quality control measures and the resulting image rejection rate for the clinical data must be specified;

    ○ Data must be provided within the clinical validation study or using equivalent datasets demonstrating the consistency (i.e., repeatability and reproducibility) of the output that is representative of the range of data quality likely to be encountered in the intended use population and relevant use conditions in the intended use environment;

    Testing must be performed using multiple operators meeting planned qualification criteria and using the procedure that will be implemented in the production use of the device; and

    The factors (e.g., medical imaging data set, operator) must be identified regarding which were held constant and which were varied during the evaluation, and a description must be provided for the computations and statistical analyses used to evaluate the data.

    • Human factors evaluation and validation must be provided to demonstrate adequate performance of the user interface to allow for users to accurately measure intended parameters, particularly where parameter settings that have impact on measurements require significant user intervention.

    • Device labeling must be provided that adequately describes the following:

    ○ The device's intended use, including the type of imaging data used, what the device measures and outputs to the user, whether the measure is qualitative or quantitative, the clinical indications for which it is to be used, and the specific population for which the device use is intended;

    ○ Appropriate warnings specifying the intended patient population, identifying anatomy and image acquisition factors that may impact measurement results, and providing cautionary guidance for interpretation of the provided measurements;

    ○ Key assumptions made in the calculation and determination of simulated measurements;

    ○ The measurement performance of the device for all presented parameters, with appropriate confidence intervals, and the supporting evidence for this performance. Per-vessel clinical performance, including where applicable localized performance according to vessel and segment, must be included as well as a characterization of the measurement error across the expected range of measurement for key parameters based on the clinical data;

    ○ A detailed description of the patients studied in the clinical validation (e.g., age, gender, race or ethnicity, clinical stability, current treatment regimen) as well as procedural details of the clinical study (e.g., scanner representation, calcium scores, use of beta-blockers or nitrates); and

    ○ Where significant human interface is necessary for accurate analysis, adequately detailed description of the analysis procedure using the device and any data features that could affect accuracy of results.

    A coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of the device. As such, the device is a prescription device and must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see 21 CFR 801.109, Prescription devices).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device they intend to market.

    II. Environmental Impact, No Significant Impact

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

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. DEN130045: De Novo Request from HeartFlow, Inc., dated November 1, 2013. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 870

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:

    PART 870—CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 870 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 870.1415 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 870.1415 Coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device.

    (a) Identification. A coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device is a prescription device that provides simulated functional assessment of blood flow in the coronary vascular system using data extracted from medical device imaging to solve algorithms and yield simulated metrics of physiologic information (e.g., blood flow, coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, myocardial perfusion). A coronary vascular physiologic simulation software device is intended to generate results for use and review by a qualified clinician.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Adequate software verification and validation based on comprehensive hazard analysis, with identification of appropriate mitigations, must be performed, including:

    (i) Full characterization of the technical parameters of the software, including:

    (A) Any proprietary algorithm(s) used to model the vascular anatomy; and

    (B) Adequate description of the expected impact of all applicable image acquisition hardware features and characteristics on performance and any associated minimum specifications;

    (ii) Adequate consideration of privacy and security issues in the system design; and

    (iii) Adequate mitigation of the impact of failure of any subsystem components (e.g., signal detection and analysis, data storage, system communications and cybersecurity) with respect to incorrect patient reports and operator failures.

    (2) Adequate non-clinical performance testing must be provided to demonstrate the validity of computational modeling methods for flow measurement; and

    (3) Clinical data supporting the proposed intended use must be provided, including the following:

    (i) Output measure(s) must be compared to a clinically acceptable method and must adequately represent the simulated measure(s) the device provides in an accurate and reproducible manner;

    (ii) Clinical utility of the device measurement accuracy must be demonstrated by comparison to that of other available diagnostic tests (e.g., from literature analysis);

    (iii) Statistical performance of the device within clinical risk strata (e.g., age, relevant comorbidities, disease stability) must be reported;

    (iv) The dataset must be adequately representative of the intended use population for the device (e.g., patients, range of vessel sizes, imaging device models). Any selection criteria or limitations of the samples must be fully described and justified;

    (v) Statistical methods must consider the predefined endpoints:

    (A) Estimates of probabilities of incorrect results must be provided for each endpoint,

    (B) Where multiple samples from the same patient are used, statistical analysis must not assume statistical independence without adequate justification, and

    (C) The report must provide appropriate confidence intervals for each performance metric;

    (vi) Sensitivity and specificity must be characterized across the range of available measurements;

    (vii) Agreement of the simulated measure(s) with clinically acceptable measure(s) must be assessed across the full range of measurements;

    (viii) Comparison of the measurement performance must be provided across the range of intended image acquisition hardware; and

    (ix) If the device uses a cutoff threshold or operates across a spectrum of disease, it must be established prior to validation, and it must be justified as to how it was determined and clinically validated;

    (4) Adequate validation must be performed and controls implemented to characterize and ensure consistency (i.e., repeatability and reproducibility) of measurement outputs:

    (i) Acceptable incoming image quality control measures and the resulting image rejection rate for the clinical data must be specified, and

    (ii) Data must be provided within the clinical validation study or using equivalent datasets demonstrating the consistency (i.e., repeatability and reproducibility) of the output that is representative of the range of data quality likely to be encountered in the intended use population and relevant use conditions in the intended use environment;

    (A) Testing must be performed using multiple operators meeting planned qualification criteria and using the procedure that will be implemented in the production use of the device, and

    (B) The factors (e.g., medical imaging dataset, operator) must be identified regarding which were held constant and which were varied during the evaluation, and a description must be provided for the computations and statistical analyses used to evaluate the data;

    (5) Human factors evaluation and validation must be provided to demonstrate adequate performance of the user interface to allow for users to accurately measure intended parameters, particularly where parameter settings that have impact on measurements require significant user intervention; and

    (6) Device labeling must be provided that adequately describes the following:

    (i) The device's intended use, including the type of imaging data used, what the device measures and outputs to the user, whether the measure is qualitative or quantitative, the clinical indications for which it is to be used, and the specific population for which the device use is intended;

    (ii) Appropriate warnings specifying the intended patient population, identifying anatomy and image acquisition factors that may impact measurement results, and providing cautionary guidance for interpretation of the provided measurements;

    (iii) Key assumptions made in the calculation and determination of simulated measurements;

    (iv) The measurement performance of the device for all presented parameters, with appropriate confidence intervals, and the supporting evidence for this performance. Per-vessel clinical performance, including where applicable localized performance according to vessel and segment, must be included as well as a characterization of the measurement error across the expected range of measurement for key parameters based on the clinical data;

    (v) A detailed description of the patients studied in the clinical validation (e.g., age, gender, race or ethnicity, clinical stability, current treatment regimen) as well as procedural details of the clinical study (e.g., scanner representation, calcium scores, use of beta-blockers or nitrates); and

    (vi) Where significant human interface is necessary for accurate analysis, adequately detailed description of the analysis procedure using the device and any data features that could affect accuracy of results.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26658 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 [USCG-2015-0242] Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of expired temporary rules issued.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective between January 2015 and March 2015 but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This notice lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

    DATES:

    This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective between January 2015 and March 2015 and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on this notice contact Yeoman First Class Maria Fiorella Villanueva, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between January 2015 and March 2015 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the list below.

    Docket No. Location Type Effective date USCG-2014-1035 Clearwater Beach, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/21/2014 USCG-2014-1033 Wilmington, DE Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/9/2014 USCG-2014-1046 Miami, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/31/2014 USCG-2014-1010 Oahu, HI Security Zones (Part 165) 12/18/2014 USCG-2014-0957 Owensboro, KY Security Zones (Part 165) 10/21/2014 USCG-2014-1014 St. Petersburg, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/25/2014 USCG-2014-1067 Wilmington, NC Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/8/2015 USCG-2014-0826 Chicago, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/5/2014 USCG-2014-0081 Buffalo, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/6/2014 USCG-2014-1058 Tampa, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/11/2015 USCG-2014-0817 Township, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/4/2014 USCG-2014-0810 St. Clair Shores, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/6/2014 USCG-2014-0815 Ecorse, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/2/2014 USCG-2014-0779 Toledo, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/29/2014 USCG-2014-0682 Cincinnati, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/31/2014 USCG-2014-0615 Orange Beach, AL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/22/2014 USCG-2014-0595 Cleveland, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/27/2014 USCG-2014-0346 Ledbetter, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 4/27/2014 USCG-2014-1072 Oak Island, NC Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/4/2015 USCG-2015-0009 Washington, DC Security Zones (Part 165) 1/20/2015 USCG-2015-0080 Tracy, CA Drawbridges (Part 117) 2/11/2015 USCG-2015-0043 Wilmington, NC Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/23/2015 USCG-2015-0081 Walnut Grove, CA Drawbridges (Part 117) 2/17/2015 USCG-2015-0091 Queen Ann County, MD Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/16/2015 USCG-2014-0989 Mt. Vernon, IN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/1/2014 USCG-2014-1022 Rockport, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/1/2014 USCG-2015-0124 Fort Pierce, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/26/2015 USCG-2015-0015 Port NY Zone, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/17/2015 USCG-2015-0106 Pacific Ocean, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/17/2015 USCG-2015-0147 Wilmington, NC Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/8/2015 USCG-2015-0026 Los Angeles, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/20/2015 USCG-2015-0089 Naples, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/7/2015 USCG-2015-0033 Alameda, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/9/2015 USCG-2015-0032 Tacoma, WA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/22/2015 USCG-2015-0077 Miami, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 2/13/2015 USCG-2015-0047 Fort Myers, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 1/30/2015 USCG-2014-0139 Marcus Hook, PA Anchorages 3/20/2015 USCG-2015-0116 San Francisco, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/21/2015 USCG-2015-0153 Boston, MA Security Zones (Part 165) 3/29/2015 USCG-2015-0044 Biloxi, MS Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/27/2015 USCG-2015-0143 New Orleans, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/26/2015 USCG-2015-0160 Pensacola, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/24/2015 USCG-2015-0173 Fort Walton Beach, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 3/11/2015 K. Kroutil, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26623 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 [USCG-2015-0242] Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of expired temporary rules issued.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective between October 2014 and December 2014 but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This notice lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

    DATES:

    This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective between October 2014 and December 2014 and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on this notice contact Yeoman First Class Maria Fiorella Villanueva, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTPs) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between October 2014 and December 2014 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the list below:

    Docket No. Location Type Effective date USCG-2014-0169 Miami, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/28/2014 USCG-2014-0085 Arkansas River Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/30/2014 USCG-2014-0636 Solomons, MD Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 10/5/2014 USCG-2014-0788 South Glastonbury, CT Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/20/2014 USCG-2014-0818 Clearwater, FL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/27/2014 USCG-2014-0864 Long Beach, CA Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/30/2014 USCG-2014-0874 Petersburg, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/27/2014 USCG-2014-0868 Pacific, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/27/2014 USCG-2014-0884 Avalon, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/4/2014 USCG-2014-0872 Norfolk, VA Security Zones (Part 165) 9/24/2014 USCG-2014-0876 Sacramento, CA Drawbridges (Part 117) 10/4/2014 USCG-2014-0881 Swansboro, NC Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/11/2014 USCG-2014-0290 Charles County, MD Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/29/2014 USCG-2014-0870 Daytona Beach, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/10/2014 USCG-2014-0913 Portland, OR Drawbridges (Part 117) 10/5/2014 USCG-2014-0887 San Francisco, CA Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 10/10/2014 USCG-2014-0819 Capitola, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/11/2014 USCG-2014-0930 Francisco, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/15/2014 USCG-2014-0893 Rio Vista, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/11/2014 USCG-2014-0899 Harsens Island, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/18/2014 USCG-2014-0646 Lake Michigan, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/18/2014 USCG-2014-0655 Jacksonville, FL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 10/21/2014 USCG-2014-0873 Miami, FL Regulated Navigation Area (Part 165) 10/11/2014 USCG-2014-0586 Chattanooga, TN Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/28/2014 USCG-2014-0343 Louisville, KY Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 10/14/2014 USCG-2014-0669 Florence, AL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 10/18/2014 USCG-2014-0729 Detroit, MI Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/6/2014 USCG-2014-0662 Nashville, TN Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/6/2014 USCG-2014-0752 Chattanooga, TN Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/11/2014 USCG-2014-0925 Miami, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 10/9/2014 USCG-2014-0933 Manalapan, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 10/13/2014 USCG-2014-0900 Evanston, Illinois Security Zones (Part 165) 10/2/2014 USCG-2014-0932 Tavares, FL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 11/1/2014 USCG-2014-0914 Savannah, GA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/28/2014 USCG-2014-0943 Detroit, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/7/2014 USCG-2014-0679 Miami, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/26/2014 USCG-2014-0972 Cape Elizabeth, Maine Security Zones (Part 165) 10/30/2014 USCG-2014-0776 New Orleans, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/7/2014 USCG-2014-0291 Wallops Island, VA Security Zones (Part 165) 10/29/2014 USCG-2014-0853 Tampa, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 9/17/2014 USCG-2014-0953 Miami, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 11/1/2014 USCG-2014-0902 Green Bay, WI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/29/2014 USCG-2014-0806 Ogden Island, NY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/27/2014 USCG-2014-0854 St. Louis, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 9/15/2014 USCG-2014-0650 Tampa Bay, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/4/2014 USCG-2014-0639 Pascagoula, MS Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/9/2014 USCG-2014-0653 Louisville, KY Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 8/23/2014 USCG-2014-0068 Lower Mississippi River Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/12/2014 USCG-2014-0660 Point Washington, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/20/2014 USCG-2014-0607 St. Louis, MO Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/10/2014 USCG-2014-0333 Maysville, KY Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/29/2014 USCG-2014-0681 Ohio River Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/6/2014 USCG-2014-0516 Pensacola, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 8/24/2014 USCG-2014-0649 Nashville, TN Security Zones (Part 165) 7/26/2014 USCG-2013-1035 Pascagoula, MS Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/17/2013 USCG-2013-1077 Rockwood, IL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 1/7/2014 USCG-2014-0440 Cincinnati, OH Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 7/13/2014 USCG-2014-0116 Lower Mississippi River Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 2/25/2014 USCG-2014-0958 Larose, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/3/2014 USCG-2014-0931 Tavares, FL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 11/15/2014 USCG-2014-0786 Parkersburg, WV Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/13/2014 USCG-2014-0710 Marietta, OH Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/7/2014 USCG-2014-0397 Cincinnati, OH Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 9/28/2014 USCG-2014-0783 Annapolis, MD Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 11/8/2014 USCG-2014-0646 Lake Michigan, MI Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/22/2014 USCG-2014-0219 Lower Mississippi River Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 5/26/2014 USCG-2014-0247 Baton Rouge, LA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 8/30/2014 USCG-2013-0965 Bayport Ship Channel Security Zones (Part 165) 11/18/2014 USCG-2014-0009 Lower Mississippi River Drawbridges (Part 117) 3/10/2014 USCG-2014-0374 St. Louis, MO Security Zones (Part 165) 5/13/2014 USCG-2014-0306 Lower Mississippi River Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 4/16/2014 USCG-2014-1006 Rockport, KY Drawbridges (Part 117) 12/1/2014 USCG-2014-0983 Hillsborough River, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/4/2014 USCG-2014-0928 San Francisco, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/23/2014 USCG-2014-0921 Cook Inlet, Alaska Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/2/2014 USCG-2014-0955 San Francisco, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 10/26/2014 USCG-2014-1004 Nantucket, Massachusetts Security Zones (Part 165) 11/25/2014 USCG-2012-0087 Tacoma, Washington Security Zones (Part 165) 12/1/2014 USCG-2014-1003 Westville, NJ Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 11/14/2014 USCG-2014-0947 New Haven, CT Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/7/2014 USCG-2014-0965 Miami, FL Security Zones (Part 165) 11/12/2014 USCG-2014-1031 Naples, FL Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/5/2014 USCG-2014-0812 Fort Lauderdale, FL Special Local Regulations (Part 100) 12/13/2014 USCG-2014-0974 Miami, FL Regulated Navigation Area (Part 165) 12/31/2014 USCG-2014-0976 Sausalito, CA Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) 12/13/2014 K. Cervoni, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26624 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0942] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Dubuque, IA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge across the Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to replace the tender house essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. on November 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2015-0942) is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m., on November 5, 2015 to replace the tender house essential to the continued safe operation of the drawbridge.

    The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that the drawbridge shall open on signal.

    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The bridge cannot open in case of emergency.

    The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 19.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

    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 15, 2015. David M. Frank, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26745 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0570] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; 520 Bridge Construction, Lake Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from October 21, 2015 through November 30, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from October 2, 2015 until October 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0570 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ryan Griffin, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone (206) 217-6051, email [email protected]

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because of an unexpected extension of construction. With construction still in progress the safety zone needs to be extended until November 30, 2015. Due to the nature of the delay and the need to extend the safety zone immediately, it would be impracticable to issue an NPRM and solicit comment before finalizing this rule.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Puget sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge construction continuing on October 2, 2015 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the 520 Bridge east span construction operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being repaired.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The safety zone established in this rule encompasses all waters within 100 yards of the east span of the 520 Bridge, located on Lake Washington and is effective from October 2, 2015 through November 30, 2015 when a construction barge is present in the safety zone. Vessels wishing to enter the safety zone must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001 or VHF Channel 16. If permission for entry is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator, because the zone established in this rule is limited in size and duration and there is an alternative route for vessels with an air draft that permits safe passage under the west span of the bridge.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting less than 60 days that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of the east span of the 520 bridge during times of construction operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T13-290 to read as follows:
    § 165.T13-290 Safety Zone; 520 Bridge, Lake Washington; Seattle, WA.

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

    (b) Regulations: In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165, Subpart C, no person may enter the safety zone or bring or cause to be brought any vessel into the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port. Persons wishing to enter the safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port by contacting the Joint Harbor Operation Center at 206-217-6001 or VHF Channel 16. If permission for entry is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.

    (c) Dates: This rule is effective from October 2, 2015, through November 30, 2015, when a construction barge is present inside the safety zone.

    Dated: September 30, 2015. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26754 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0374; FRL-9933-73] Potassium Salts of Hops Beta Acids; 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 the biochemical pesticide potassium salts of hops beta acids in or on honey and honeycomb for the control of Varroa mites in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Interregional Research Project Number 4, on behalf of Beta Tec Hop Products, Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of potassium salts of hops beta acids in or on honey and honeycomb.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 21, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 21, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0374, 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:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

    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-2014-0374 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 21, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0374, 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of September 5, 2014 (79 FR 53009) (FRL-9914-98), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 3E8217) by Interregional Research Project Number 4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, on behalf of BetaTec Hop Products, Inc. (the petitioner). The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of potassium salts of hop beta acids (K-HBAs) in or on honey and honeycomb resulting from the control of Varroa mites. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were 63 comments received in response to the batched notice of filing but none were relevant to the establishment of a tolerance for potassium salts of hops beta acids.

    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. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, EPA is required to take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D).

    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

    III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information 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.

    A. Overview of Potassium Salts of Hops Beta Acids

    K-HBAs are derived from the resin components of the cones of female hop plants Humulus lupulus. The three major components of K-HBAs are Lupulone (30-55% with an isopropyl side chain), Colupulone (20-55% with an isobutyl side chain), and Adlupulone (5-10% with a secbutyl side chain); the components differ only in the R-side chain attached. K-HBA is classified as a biochemical pesticide because it is naturally occurring (found in Humulus lupulus plant), has a non-toxic mode of action against the target pest, and has a history of exposure to humans and the environment demonstrating minimal toxicity. There is a long history of safe use of HBAs via the oral and dietary exposure to humans from its use as a preservative on meats (estimated range 4.4 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) of cooked meat—5.5 mg/kg of frankfurter) and its presence in the beer brewing process. Due to its long history of exposure, K-HBAs are considered to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by FDA.

    B. Biochemical Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements

    All applicable mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the petition to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the use of potassium salts of hops beta acids as an active ingredient for use to control Varroa mites in or on honey and honeycomb have been fulfilled. No significant toxicological effects were observed in the acute toxicity study or other information from the literature that was used to address the toxicity data requirements. For the Tier I subchronic toxicity studies, data and information from scientific literature were used in support of acceptable rationales to address the data requirements, focusing on the long history of exposure to K-HBAs in food preservation and in the production of beer, which is commonly consumed in the United States. K-HBAs are not structurally-related to known mutagens, nor are they in a chemical class known to contain a known mutagen. Further, from the available toxicity information, there were no systemic effects of potassium salts of hops beta acids via the oral, dermal, or inhalation routes of exposure. For a summary of the data upon which EPA relied, and its human health risk assessment based on that data, please refer to the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Potassium Salts of Hops Beta acids” (July 15, 2015), available in the docket for this action.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

    A. Dietary Exposure

    Human dietary exposure through food to residues of K-HBAs already occurs via its use as a preservative in meats and its natural presence in beer brewing production. EPA does not expect much residue of potassium salts of hops beta acids in honey from its use as a pesticide in hives based on residue studies. In three different studies conducted over 3 years, only one honey sample from one honey super was shown to have residues of hops beta acids (0.44 part per million (ppm)), and the residue level was only slightly above the analytical limits of detection (0.41 ppm) and well below the Limit of Quantitation (1.2 ppm).

    No significant exposure via drinking water is expected from its use as an active ingredient as a pesticide. K-HBAs are non-volatile and are expected to degrade rapidly, with 100% degradation in 36 hours in the light and 4 days in the dark. Furthermore, as an insecticide, K-HBAs are formulated into a viscous liquid and coated on fiber strips which are placed inside the beehive such that the product is not sprayed or applied in any way that it would be expected to contact any source of drinking water.

    Should exposure occur, however, minimal to no risk is expected for the general population, including infants and children, due to the long history of dietary exposure to K-HBAs.

    B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Non-occupational exposure to potasium salts of hops beta acids is not expected because potassium salts of hops beta acids is formulated into a viscous liquid and coated on fiber strips which are placed inside the beehive. There are no residential proposed uses. However, minimal to no risk is expected for the general population, including infants and children, due to the minimal toxicity of this chemical as demonstrated in the data submitted and evaluated by the Agency, as fully explained in the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Potassium Salts of Hops Beta acids” (July 15, 2015), available in the docket for this action.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

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

    EPA has not found potassium salts of hops beta acids to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and potassium salts of hops beta acids does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that potassium salts of hops beta acids 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.

    VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines 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 (FQPA) Safety Factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.

    As part of its qualitative assessment, EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on potassium salts of hops beta acids and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA considers the toxicity database to be complete and has identified no residual uncertainty with regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity or exposure. No hazard was identified based on the available studies; therefore, EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or adults from potassium salts of hops beta acids. As a result, EPA concludes that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary.

    VII. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    VIII. Conclusion

    Based on its assessment of potassium salts of hops beta acids, 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 potassium salts of hops beta acids. EPA is therefore establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of potassium salts of hops beta acids for the control of Varroa mites in or on honey and honeycomb, in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of 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 final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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 final rule 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 exemption 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 final rule 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 final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    X. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 29, 2015. Jack E. Housenger, Director, 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. Add section 180.1333 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 180.1333 Potassium Salts of Hops Beta acids; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the biochemical potassium salts of hops beta acids in or on honey and honeycomb, when used for the control of Varroa mites in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26600 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0442; FRL-9935-34] Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-; 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 poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- (CAS Reg. No. 26571-49-3) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. BYK USA Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 21, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 21, 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-2015-0442, 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. 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-2015-0442 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 21, 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-2015-0442, 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51759) (FRL-9931-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP) IN-10826 filed by BYK USA Inc., 524 South Cherry Street, Wallingford, CT 06492-4453. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- (CAS Reg. No. 26571-49-3). That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. 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 use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

    III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from 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(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

    7. The polymer's minimum number average MW of 2,300 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

    Thus, poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number average MW of poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- is 2,300 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

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

    EPA has not found poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- 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.

    VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 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 data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-.

    VIII. 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 Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-.

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]- from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

    X. 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).

    XI. 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 13, 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 § 180.960, add alphabetically the following polymer to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *    *    *    *    * Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], α-[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1-yl]-ω-[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecen-1yl]oxy]-, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) 2,300 26571-49-3 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-26617 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012; FRL-9935-11] Pyrimethanil; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyrimethanil in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerances associated with pesticide petition number (PP 4E8302), and Bayer CropScience requested the tolerances associated with PP 4F8291, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 21, 2015, except for the amendment to § 180.661 in amendatory instruction number 3, which is effective April 21, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 21, 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-2015-0012, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012 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 21, 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-2015-0012, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of (PP 4E8302) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide pyrimethanil, (4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine), in or on cucumber at 1.5 parts per million (ppm); fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 14 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 10 ppm; grapefruit subgroup 10-10C at 10 ppm; lemon subgroup 10-10B at 11 ppm; orange subgroup 10-10A at 10 ppm; and tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.5 ppm. Upon approval of the tolerances in this petition, the petition requested that the tolerances for fruit, citrus, group 10 except lemon, postharvest; fruit, pome, group 11 (preharvest and post-harvest); fruit, stone, group 12; lemon (preharvest and postharvest); and tomato be removed as they are superseded. This petition additionally requested that 40 CFR 180.518 be amended by revising the existing tolerance for onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0590 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to this notice of filing.

    In the Federal Register of May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-39), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of PP 4F8291 by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide pyrimethanil, in or on in or on caneberry (subgroup 13-07A) at 15.0 ppm and bushberry (subgroup 13-07B) at 8.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to the comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has revised the petitioned-for tolerance in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10. The Agency has also determined that the separate subgroup tolerances proposed in or on orange subgroup 10-10A, lemon subgroup 10-10B, and grapefruit subgroup 10-10C should be established in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The major target organs of repeated oral exposure to pyrimethanil were the liver, kidney and thyroid. By the oral route of exposure, the rat was the most sensitive species to pyrimethanil toxicity, followed by the dog and then the mouse. Effects observed including clinical signs (for example, vomiting, diarrhea and salivation in the dog), changes in clinical chemical parameters (liver enzymes), changes in organ weights (mostly relative), and macroscopic and microscopic organ changes. These effects were accompanied by decreased body weight. Clinical signs of neurotoxicity including ataxia and dilated pupils, and decreases in motor activity, hind limb grip strength and body temperature were observed in an acute neurotoxicity study in rats (females only) at the highest dose tested (HDT). However, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity with repeated dosing in a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats.

    Special short-term exposure studies conducted for pyrimethanil demonstrated increased liver uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase activity, leading to decreases in thyroid hormones (T3, T4) and compensatory increases in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in adult rats. Although the effects on the thyroid raise a potential concern for thyroid toxicity in the young, EPA concluded there is no concern for thyroid toxicity in the young based on the following: (1) The effects are not severe in nature and; (2) the wide dose spread (i.e., more than 10-fold difference between the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-levels (LOAELs) in each of the studies showing effects on thyroid hormone levels (as well as the studies the Agency is using for its points of departure) provides a measure of protection for any potential effects linked to decreased thyroid hormone levels in offspring. Moreover, reproductive toxicity was not observed following pyrimethanil administration, and developmental effects (e.g., decreased fetal weight, retarded ossification, extra ribs) were observed only at doses that caused maternally toxic effects (e.g., death, decreased body weight and body-weight gain); therefore, pyrimethanil is not expected to result in increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility for infants and children.

    Thyroid adenomas were seen in rats following long-term exposure, and it was concluded that they were mediated via disruption of the thyroid/pituitary axis. There were no concerns for mutagenicity. The EPA has classified pyrimethanil as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.” This decision was based on the following:

    1. There were treatment-related increases in thyroid follicular cell tumors in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at doses which were considered adequate to assess carcinogenicity; however, rats are substantially more sensitive than humans to the development of thyroid follicular cell tumors in response to thyroid hormone imbalance.

    2. There were no treatment-related tumors seen in male or female CD-1 mice at doses which were considered adequate to assess carcinogenicity.

    3. There is no mutagenicity concern and there is no evidence for thyroid carcinogenesis mediated through a mutagenic mode of action.

    4. The non-neoplastic toxicological evidence (i.e., thyroid growth, thyroid hormonal changes) indicated that pyrimethanil was inducing a disruption in the thyroid-pituitary hormonal status. The overall weight-of-evidence was considered sufficient to indicate that pyrimethanil induced thyroid follicular tumors through a non-linear, antithyroid mode of action.

    For these reasons, EPA determined that quantification of carcinogenic risk is not required and that the NOAEL established for deriving the chronic reference dose (cRfD) would be protective of cancer effects. Due to the non-linear mode of action of pyrimethanil, exposure at the NOAEL is not expected to alter thyroid hormone homeostasis nor result in thyroid tumor formation.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyrimethanil as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, “Pyrimethanil. Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Greenhouse-Grown Cucumbers, Tomato Subgroup 8-10A, Lemon Subgroup 10-10B, Orange Subgroup 10-10A, Grapefruit Subgroup 10-10C, Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Stone Fruit Group 12-12 Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, and Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B,” in pp. 29-31 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012.

    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. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyrimethanil used for human risk assessment is discussed in Table 1 in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45499) (FRL-9354-7).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to pyrimethanil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyrimethanil tolerances in 40 CFR 180.518. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyrimethanil in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for pyrimethanil. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed default processing factors, empirical processing factors for orange and apple juice, tolerance-level residues, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed default processing factors, empirical processing factors for orange and apple juice, tolerance-level residues, and 100 PCT for all commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that pyrimethanil is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk was not performed.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for pyrimethanil. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In drinking water, residues of concern are pyrimethanil and the degradate 2-amino-4,6-dimethylpyrimidine. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pyrimethanil and its degradate in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of pyrimethanil and its degradate. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyrimethanil and its degradate for acute exposures are estimated to be 156 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 128 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, they are estimated to be 27.9 ppb for surface water and 117 ppb for ground water.

    Current EPA policy typically recommends the EDWCs for use in dietary assessments be derived from the water source with the highest EDWCs, which for pyrimethanil is surface water for acute exposure and groundwater for chronic exposure. However, due to generally low leaching (EDWCs and incomplete breakthrough) identified in the 100-year simulation in groundwater, the surface water EDWCs are recommended for both acute and chronic exposure assessments. Therefore, for acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 156 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 27.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found pyrimethanil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pyrimethanil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyrimethanil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicology database for pyrimethanil includes rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., there was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of fetuses or offspring following exposure to pyrimethanil in these studies.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for pyrimethanil is complete.

    ii. Clinical signs of neurotoxicity (ataxia, decreased motor activity, decreased body temperature, decreased hind limb grip strength in males, and dilated pupils) were observed only in females in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats and only at the HDT (1,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg)). Although the limit dose was not tested in the subchronic neurotoxicity study, no clinical signs, behavioral changes, or neuropathology were seen at one-half of the limit dose (up to 430 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). In addition, no neurotoxic signs were seen in the rest of the toxicity database for pyrimethanil and the target organ for toxicity is the thyroid. The selected endpoints for pyrimethanil will be protective of any potential signs of neurotoxicity. Therefore, the concern for neurotoxicity is low, and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

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

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

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to pyrimethanil will occupy 40% of the aPAD for children one to two years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pyrimethanil from food and water will utilize 80% of the cPAD for children one to two years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for pyrimethanil.

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

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has determined that the thyroid tumors seen in rat studies arise through a non-linear mode of action and the NOAEL (17 mg/kg/day) established for deriving the cRfD is not expected to alter thyroid hormone homeostasis nor result in thyroid tumor formation. Thus, the chronic risk assessment addresses any cancer risk. Based on the results of chronic risk assessment, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to pyrimethanil will not cause a cancer risk.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    There are no Codex MRLs established for residues of pyrimethanil in or on cucumber or bushberry subgroup 13-07B or caneberry subgroup 13-07A commodities. A U.S. tolerance in or on pome fruit group 11-10 was petitioned-for at 14 ppm; however, the EPA is establishing a tolerance at 15 ppm in order to harmonize with Codex MRLs established on associated pome fruit commodities at 15 ppm. The U.S. tolerance in or on bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.20 ppm is harmonized with a Codex MRL on bulb onion. Although there is a Codex MRL at 0.7 ppm for tomato, EPA is establishing a tolerance for the tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.50 ppm in order to harmonize with the Canadian MRL to facilitate trade with Canada. The U.S. tolerances for citrus fruit group 10-10 at 10 ppm and stone fruit group 12-12 at 10 ppm cannot be harmonized with Codex MRLs on the same commodities because the residue data supporting these uses result in tolerance calculations that are higher than the Codex MRLs for citrus (7 ppm) and the range of MRLs for stone fruit commodities (2 ppm to 4 ppm), which precludes harmonization.

    C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received to the Notice of Filing for PP 4F8291, which provided general support for the proposed tolerances. There were no concerns identified in this public comment.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has revised the petitioned-for tolerance in or on fruit, pome, group 11-10 from 14 ppm to 15 ppm, in order to harmonize with the Codex MRL on associated pome fruit commodities. The Agency has also determined that the separate subgroup tolerances petitioned-for in or on orange subgroup 10-10A at 10 ppm, lemon subgroup 10-10B at 11 ppm, and grapefruit subgroup 10-10C at 10 ppm should be established in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 10 ppm. A citrus group 10-10 tolerance at 10 ppm is supported by available data and harmonizes the U.S. tolerance with the Canadian MRL.

    E. International Trade Considerations

    In this rulemaking, EPA is reducing the tolerance for the onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. The petitioner requested this reduction because it was a typographical error when the previous rule for pyrimethanil was published. EPA had assessed the tolerance at 0.20 ppm, but the rule was printed as 2.0 ppm. The reduction is appropriate based on available data and residue levels resulting from registered use patterns. In accordance with the World Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, EPA is allowing the existing higher tolerance to remain in effect for 6 months following the publication of this rule in order to allow a reasonable interval for producers in the exporting countries to adapt to the requirements of these modified tolerances. On April 21, 2016, the new reduced tolerance for subgroup 3-07A will go into effect. At that time, residues of pyrimethanil on commodities contained in subgroup 3-07A will need to comply with the new tolerance of 0.20 ppm. This reduction in tolerance is not discriminatory; the same food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically produced and imported foods.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyrimethanil (4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine) in or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 8.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 15 ppm; cucumber at 1.5 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 15 ppm; fruit, stone group 12-12 at 10 ppm; and tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.50 ppm. This regulation additionally revises the tolerance in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. Finally, this regulation removes tolerances in or on fruit, citrus, group 10, except lemon, postharvest; fruit, pome, group 11 (pre-harvest and post-harvest); fruit, stone, group 12; lemon, preharvest and postharvest; and tomato.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 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 tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 13, 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 § 180.518, the table in paragraph (a)(1): a. Remove the commodities “fruit, citrus, group 10, except lemon, postharvest”; “fruit, pome, group 11 (pre-harvest and post-harvest)”; “fruit, stone, group 12”; “lemon, preharvest and postharvest”; and “tomato”; and b. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.518 Pyrimethanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 8.0 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 15 *    *    *    *    * Cucumber 1.5 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 10 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 15 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, stone, group 12-12 10 *    *    *    *    * Tomato subgroup 8-10A 0.50 *    *    *    *    *
    3. In § 180.518, in the table in paragraph (a)(1), effective April 21, 2016, revise the existing tolerance “Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A” to read as follows:
    § 180.518 Pyrimethanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General.

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A 0.2 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-26596 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0109; FRL-9936-00-Region 6] Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The State of Texas has applied to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this direct final rule. In the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is also publishing a separate document that serves as the proposal to authorize these changes. EPA believes this action is not controversial and does not expect comments that oppose it. Unless EPA receives written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Texas' changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If EPA receives comments that oppose this action, EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing today's direct final rule before it takes effect, and the separate document in today's “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register will serve as the proposal to authorize the changes.

    DATES:

    This final authorization is effective on December 21, 2015 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by November 20, 2015. If the EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that this authorization will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments by one of the following methods:

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

    • Email: [insert name and email address of appropriate Regional contact].

    • Fax: (prior to faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below).

    • Mail: [insert name and address of appropriate Regional contact].

    • Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to [insert name and address of appropriate Regional contact].

    Instructions: EPA must receive your comments by November 20, 2015. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number 0109. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy.

    You can view and copy Texas' application and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following locations: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, (TCEQ) 12100 Park S. Circle, Austin, Texas 78753-3087, (512) 239-6079 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, (214) 665-8533, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and email address [email protected].

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

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in the State of Texas, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

    B. What decisions have EPA made in this rule?

    On April 3, 2015, the State of Texas submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated between promulgated between June 13, 2011, and January 3, 2014. The adoption for RCRA Clusters XXI through XXIII (Checklists 227, 229 and 230). EPA concludes that the State of Texas's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA grants the State of Texas final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application, and as outline below in Section G of this document. The State of Texas has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country). In today's action under Section 18 U.S.C. 1151 does not affect Indian Country. Because the State of Texas Hazardous waste Program is not being authorized to operate in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in the State of Texas, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

    C. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in the State of Texas subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. The State of Texas has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

    • Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

    • enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits and

    • take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.

    This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which the State of Texas is being authorized by today's action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by today's action.

    D. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    Along with this direct final rule, EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register that serves as the proposal to authorize these State program changes. EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because EPA views this as a routine program changes and does not expect comments. EPA also views the State of Texas program revisions as noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment.

    EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now, as described in Section E of this document.

    E. What happens if the EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, EPA will withdraw today's direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous section, after considering all comments received during the comment period. EPA will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

    If EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, EPA will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified in this document. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

    F. For what has Texas previously been authorized?

    The State of Texas initially received final authorization on December 26, 1984 (49 FR 48300), to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management Program. This authorization was clarified in a notice published March 26, 1985 (50 FR 11858). Texas received authorization for revisions to its program, effective October 4, 1985 (51 FR 3952), February 17, 1987 (51 FR 45320), March 15, 1990 (55 FR 7318), July 23, 1990 (55 FR 21383), October 21, 1991 (56 FR 41626), December 4, 1992 (57 FR 45719), June 27, 1994 (59 FR 16987), June 27, 1994 (59 FR 17273), November 26, 1997 (62 FR 47947), December 3, 1997 (62 FR 49163), October 18, 1999 (64 FR 44836), November 15, 1999 (64 FR 49673), September 11, 2000 (65 FR 43246), June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34371), December 29, 2008, (73 FR 64252), and July 13, 2009 (74 FR 22469). The EPA incorporated by reference Texas' then authorized hazardous waste program effective December 3, 1997 (62 FR 49163), November 15, 1999 (64 FR 49673), December 29, 2008 (73 FR 64252), March 7, 2011 (76 FR 12285) effective May 6, 2011 and March 6, 2012 (77 FR 13200) effective May 7, 2012 and September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52220-52224) effective November 3, 2014.

    In 1991, Texas Senate Bill 2 created the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) which combined the functions of the former Texas Water Commission and the former Texas Air Control Board. The transfer of functions to the TNRCC from the two agencies became effective on September 1, 1993. House Bill 2912, Article 18 of the 77th Texas Legislature, 2001, changed the name of the TNRCC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and directed the TNRCC to adopt a timetable for phasing in the change of the agency's name. The TNRCC decided to make the change of the agency's name to the TCEQ effective September 1, 2002. The change of name became effective September 1, 2002, and the legislative history of the name change is documented at (See, Act of June 15, 2001, 77th Leg. R. S., Ch 965, Section 18.01, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1985). The TCEQ may perform any act authorized by law either as the TNRCC or as the TCEQ. Id. Therefore, references to the TCEQ are references to TNRCC and to its successor, the TCEQ.

    The TCEQ has primary responsibility for administration of laws and regulations concerning hazardous waste. The official State regulations may be found in Title 30, Texas Administrative Code, Chapters 305, 324 and 335, effective February 21, 2013. Some of the State rules incorporate the Federal regulations by reference. Texas Water Code Section 5.103 and Section 5.105 and Texas Health and Safety Code Section 361.017 and Section 361.024 confer on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality the powers to perform any acts necessary and convenient to the exercise of its jurisdiction. The TCEQ is authorized to administer the RCRA program. However, the Railroad Commission (RRC) has jurisdiction over the discharge, storage, handling, transportation, reclamation, or disposal of waste materials (both hazardous and non-hazardous) that result from the activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas or geothermal resources and other activities regulated by the RRC. A list of activities that generate wastes that are subject to the jurisdiction of the RRC is found at Texas Health and Safety Code Section 401.415. Such wastes are termed “oil and gas wastes.” The TCEQ has responsibility to administer the RCRA program, however, hazardous waste generated at natural gas or natural gas liquids processing plants or reservoir pressure maintenance or repressurizing plants are subject to the jurisdiction of the TCEQ until the RRC is authorized by EPA to administer that waste under RCRA. The TCEQ jurisdiction over Solid waste can be found at Chapter 361, Sections 361.001 through 361.754 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The TCEQ's jurisdiction encompasses hazardous and nonhazardous, industrial and municipal Solid waste. The definition of Solid waste can be found at Texas Health and Safety Code Section 361.003(34). When the RRC is authorized by EPA to administer the RCRA program for these wastes, jurisdiction over such hazardous waste will transfer from the TCEQ to the RRC. The EPA has designated the TCEQ as the lead agency to coordinate RCRA activities between the two agencies. The EPA is responsible for the regulation of any hazardous waste for which TCEQ has not been previously authorized.

    Further clarification of the jurisdiction between the TCEQ and the RRC can be found in a separate document. This document, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), became effective on May 31, 1998.

    The TCEQ has the rules necessary to implement EPA's RCRA Clusters XXI through XXIII, excluding the Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarification Rule in Cluster XXII (Checklist 228), because the TCEQ needs to make a technical corrections to their adoption of the rule. The State is seeking authorization for Revision of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes (Checklist 227), Conditional Exclusion for Solvent Contaminated Wipes (Checklist 229) and Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities (Checklist 230). The Commissioners adopted revisions to the Federal hazardous waste standards promulgated between June 13, 2011, and January 3, 2014. TCEQ regulations 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 335 were revised to include these revisions to the RCRA Clusters XXI through XXIII. The TCEQ adopted the Federal regulations on December 10, 2014. The revisions were published in the Texas Register on January 2, 2015 and became effective on January 8, 2015. The TCEQ authority to incorporate Federal rules by reference can be found at Texas Administrative Code 335 Sections 335.28, 335.29 and 335.31.

    G. What changes EPA authorizing with today's action?

    On April 3, 2015 the State of Texas submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make direct final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that the State of Texas' hazardous waste program revision are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA grants the State of Texas final authorization for RCRA Cluster XXII through XXIII (Checklists 227, 229 and 230). The State of Texas program revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal Hazardous Waste revisions promulgated between June 13, 2011, and January 3, 2014 which are listed in the chart below.

    Description of federal requirement
  • (include checklist #, if relevant)
  • Federal Register date and page
  • (and/or RCRA statutory
  • authority )
  • Analogous state authority
    1. Revisions of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes. (Checklist 227) 76 FR 34147-34157 June 13, 2011 Texas Water Code Annotated Sections 5.103 and 5.105, Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated Sections 361.017 and 361.024; 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 335 Section 335.431(c)(1), adopted December 10, 2014 and effective January 8, 2015. 2. Conditional Exclusions for Solvent Contaminated Wipes. (Checklist 229) 78 FR 46448-46485 July 31, 2013 Texas Water Code Annotated Sections 5.103 and 5.105, Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated Sections 361.017 and 361.024; 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 335 Section 335.1(104), 335.1(141), 335.1(174), 335.1(140)(A)(iv), 335.504(1) adopted December 10, 2014 and effective January 8, 2015. 3. Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities. (Checklist 230) 79 FR 350-364 January 3, 2014 Texas Water Code Annotated Sections 5.103 and 5.105, Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated Sections 361.017 and 361.024; 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 335 Section 335.1(16), and 335.504(1), adopted December 10, 2014 and effective January 8, 2015.
    H. Where are the revised state rules different from the Federal rules?

    The State of Texas hazardous waste program is equivalent to the Federal program in all areas except where the State program is broader in scope. In the State of Texas, some rules are broader in scope because they cover both hazardous waste and Class 1 nonhazardous waste, whereas the Federal regulations cover only hazardous waste. Other differences which are broader in scope or more stringent contained in the past authorization packages include more frequent public notices for traditional hazardous waste permits and for Standard Permit; financial assurance requirements for persons seeking to acquire a hazardous waste permit through transfer, and deferring of variances and exemptions from the Land Disposal Restrictions to EPA.

    I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    The State of Texas will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. EPA will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the chart in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Texas is not yet authorized.

    J. What is codification and is the EPA codifying Texas' hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR parts 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR parts 272, subpart SS for this authorization of Texas' program changes until a later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this Federal Register document.

    K. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes preexisting requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application; to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

    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 document 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 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). This action nevertheless will be effective December 21, 2015.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: October 1, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26789 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 360, 365, 366, 368, 385, 387, 390 and 392 [Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2349] RIN 2126-AB85; Formerly 2126-AA22 Unified Registration System AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; extension of effective dates.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA delays the effective and compliance dates for its August 23, 2013, Unified Registration System (URS) final rule. Because FMCSA changes the effective date (the actual date when the regulatory text that appears in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will be changed) and makes technical corrections and conforming amendments to the 2013 regulatory text, the Agency has determined that it is in the best interest of the regulated entities, our State partners and the general public to present the full text of the sections affected. The 2013 URS final rule was issued to improve the registration process for motor carriers, property brokers, freight forwarders, Intermodal Equipment Providers (IEPs), hazardous materials safety permit (HMSP) applicants and cargo tank facilities required to register with FMCSA, and streamline the existing Federal registration processes to ensure the Agency can more efficiently track these entities. Today's final rule delays the implementation of the 2013 final rule in order to allow FMCSA additional time to complete the information technology (IT) systems work required to fully implement that rule.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The effective date of this rule is September 30, 2016, except for §§ 365.T106, 368.T3, and 390.T200, which are effective from December 12, 2015 through September 29, 2016. The effective dates of the rule published at 78 FR 52608 (August 23, 2013) are delayed until September 30, 2016. The withdrawal of Instruction #1 from the correction published at 78 FR 63100 (October 23, 2013) is effective October 21, 2015.

    Compliance Dates: The compliance date for this rule is September 30, 2016, except that: New applicants must comply with §§ 365.T106, 368.T3 or 390.T200 (as applicable) from December 12, 2015 through September 29, 2016; private hazardous material carriers and exempt for-hire carriers must comply with §§ 387.19 or 387.43 (as applicable) by December 31, 2016; and all entities must comply with § 366.2 by December 31, 2016.

    Petitions for reconsideration must be received by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    All background documents, comments, and materials related to this rule may be viewed in docket number FMCSA-1997-2349 using either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    • Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jeffrey S. Loftus, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 385-2363 or via email at [email protected] Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Public Participation A. Viewing Comments and Documents B. Privacy Act III. Acronyms and Abbreviations IV. Background A. Legal Authority B. Regulatory History V. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Overview B. Part 360, Fees for Motor Carrier Registration and Insurance C. Part 365, Rules Governing Applications for Operating Authority D. Part 366, Designation of Process Agent E. Part 368, Application for a Certificate of Registration To Operate in Municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico International Border or Within the Commercial Zones of Such Municipalities F. Part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures G. Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers H. Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, General VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 D. National Environmental Policy Act E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) I. Eecutive Order 13132 (Federalism) J. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) K. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) L. Privacy Impact Analysis I. Executive Summary

    This final rule is being issued to delay the effective and compliance dates of the Unified Registration System (URS) final rule, issued on August 23, 2013.1 Because FMCSA changes the effective date (the actual date when the regulatory text that appears in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will be changed) and makes technical corrections and conforming amendments to the 2013 regulatory text, the Agency has determined that it is in the best interest of the regulated entities, our State partners and the general public to present the full text of the sections affected. The URS final rule was issued to improve the registration process for motor carriers, property brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants and cargo tank facilities required to register with FMCSA, and streamline the existing Federal registration processes to ensure the Agency can more efficiently track these entities. The URS final rule increases public accessibility to data about interstate motor carriers, property brokers, freight forwarders, IEPs, HMSP applicants, and cargo tank facilities. Full implementation of the URS final rule will replace the registration functions of the following systems: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) identification number system; (2) the 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 commercial registration system; (3) the 49 U.S.C. 13906 financial responsibility information system; and (4) the service of process agent designation system (49 U.S.C. 503 and 13304).

    1Final Rule, Unified Registration System, 78 FR 52608 (Aug. 23, 2013).

    FMCSA estimated a 2-year period for development of the information technology (IT) system to implement the August 23, 2013, URS final rule, and as a result set the initial compliance date for the majority of that rule at 26 months after publication (October 23, 2015).2 During the 2 years since publication of the final rule, the Agency has experienced challenges completing the IT system necessary to fully implement the 2013 final rule. FMCSA also received a protest during the acquisition process for a supporting contractor, which added to delays in development of the IT system for integrating and retiring the FMCSA legacy registration systems. The Agency and its supporting contractors worked diligently in the past 24 months to meet the original URS final rule's effective date, but ultimately determined that full implementation of the URS cannot be accomplished by that time.

    2 Some provisions (amendments to 49 CFR 390.19 and 392.9b) became effective on November 1, 2013, and are not impacted by this final rule. The amendment to 49 CFR 366.2 was set to go into effect 32 months after publication (April 25, 2016); this final rule also delays that date.

    As a result, FMCSA is delaying the effective and compliance dates of the URS final rule, as reflected in the table at the end of this executive summary. The new dates reflect the revised schedule for completing the IT system required. In doing so, the Agency determined that a discrete portion of the IT system will be available earlier than others, and so we are adding three temporary sections, one each in parts 365, 368, and 390, to allow for implementation of that portion of the new URS. These temporary sections will apply to new U.S.- or Canada-domiciled applicants and Mexico-domiciled applicants seeking registration to operate in the commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border. A new applicant is defined as anyone who does not have, and has never been assigned a USDOT, Motor Carrier (MC), Mexico owned or controlled (MX), or Freight Forwarder (FF) number. These new applicants will be required to use the new online application when requesting registration and a USDOT number beginning on December 12, 2015. The new online application and associated database will not be available for use by those who already have USDOT, MC, MX, or FF numbers until September 30, 2016, so we are establishing the new overall effective date of this final rule to coincide with that availability. Once that occurs, there will no longer be a need for the separate provisions dealing with new applicants, thus the temporary sections will be in effect only from December 12, 2015 through September 29, 2016. After that time, the URS system, including the online application, will be available for submission of all requests for new registration, to track applications, to update information, and to file biennial updates.

    While we are delaying the effective date for most of the URS final rule requirements until September 30, 2016, we are providing an additional three months for full compliance with some provisions. Private hazardous material carriers and exempt for-hire carriers registered with the Agency as of September 30, 2016, will be given three months from that date to file their evidence of compliance with the financial responsibility requirements. While these carriers have had to obtain adequate insurance coverage for some time now, the 2013 final rule provided the first rule requiring them to file proof of that coverage with FMCSA. As a result, FMCSA believes allowing for a three month compliance period will help alleviate potential concerns entities may have over using a new system, as well as ensure seamless operation of the URS.

    Additionally, all entities registered with the Agency as of September 30, 2016, will have this same three month period to file their designation of a process service agent (Form BOC-3) using the URS online application. This delay is to ensure that regulated entities have sufficient time to become familiar with the system.

    The new URS will be capable of handling both financial responsibility and designation of process agent filings on September 30, 2016, and FMCSA encourages those entities required to make these filings as early in the compliance period as they can. In order to include this staggered compliance period, we have revised § 366.2 (designation of process service agent) and sections 387.19 and 387.43 (financial responsibility) slightly from what was published on August 23, 2013, as explained in greater detail in the section-by-section discussion below.

    We are making corrections to errors found in the original final rule since its publication. In parts 385, 387, 390 and 392 we are correcting inadvertent errors to the authority citations. In § 387.403, we are making conforming amendments based on other final rules that affected the registration requirements since the publication of the August 23, 2013 URS final rule. In § 390.207, we are correcting a cross reference. In § 368.8, we are removing a statement that “decisions by the Director will be final Agency orders on certain appeals”—the Agency has changed its internal delegations, and this sentence is no longer accurate. Finally, we are updating the web address for obtaining access to URS to provide a more precise location, as opposed to the main FMCSA home page. These changes are not substantive and are explained in more detail in the section-by-section discussion below. Finally, we have incorporated corrections that were made in an October 23, 2013 correction document.3

    3 78 FR 63100, October 23, 2013.

    URS Effective Dates URS final rule major provision (Existing) effective/
  • compliance date
  • (New) effective/
  • compliance date
  • Registration Application Process using the MCSA-1 online application for New Applicants1 10/23/2015 12/12/2015 Use of MCSA-1 online application for all new and existing entities for all reasons to file 10/23/2015 9/30/2016 USDOT Number as sole identifier (discontinuing issuance of docket numbers) 10/23/2015 9/30/2016 New Fees Schedule 10/23/2015 9/30/2016 Evidence of Financial Responsibility (Insurance Filings and Surety Bonds/Trusts) for New Private HM and New Exempt For Hire Carriers 10/23/2015 9/30/2016 Evidence of Financial Responsibility (Insurance Filings and Surety Bonds/Trusts) for Existing Private HM and Exempt For Hire Carriers 10/23/2015 12/31/2016 Process Agent Designation (BOC-3) for All New Motor Carriers (including Private and Exempt For Hire Carriers) 10/23/2015 9/30/2016 Process Agent Designation (BOC-3) for All Existing Motor Carriers (including Private and Exempt For Hire Carriers) 4/25/2016 12/31/2016 1 New and existing Non-North American motor carriers will begin to use the MCSA-1 online application on 9/30/2016.
    II. Public Participation A. Viewing Documents

    To view comments submitted to previous rulemaking notices on this subject, as well as documents identified in this preamble as available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the “Read Comments” box in the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the “Keyword” box, insert “FMCSA-1997-2349” and click “Search.” Next, click “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. Finally, in the “Title” column, click on the document you would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    B. Privacy Act

    All comments received were posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT previously solicited comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posted these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    III. Acronyms and Abbreviations ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking APA Administrative Procedure Act BI&PD Bodily Injury and Property Damage BOC-3 FMCSA Form—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders CAA Clean Air Act CD Compact Disc CDL Commercial Driver's License CE Categorical Exclusion CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle DOT/USDOT United States Department of Transportation FF Freight Forwarder FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR parts 350 through 399 FR Federal Register HM Hazardous Materials HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR parts 171 through 180 HMSP Hazardous Materials Safety Permit IEP Intermodal Equipment Providers ICCTA ICC Termination Act of 1995 NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System MCS-150 FMCSA Form—Motor Carrier Identification Report (Application for USDOT Number) MCSA-1 FMCSA Form, the URS online application MC Motor Carrier MC-R Office of the Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology MC-RI Office of Information Technology MC-RS Office of Registration and Safety Information MX Mexican-owned or controlled OMB Office of Management and Budget NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PIA Privacy Impact Assessment PII Personally Identifiable Information PRISM Performance and Registration Information Systems Management SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SSRS Single State Registration System TA Temporary Authority UCR Unified Carrier Registration URS Unified Registration System U.S.C. United States Code IV. Background A. Legal Authority

    FMCSA relies upon the same legal authority cited in the August 23, 2013, Unified Registration System (URS) final rule. The Agency extends the effective and compliance dates, and makes technical corrections and conforming amendments to the 2013 final rule. Because there are no substantive changes to content of the 2013 final rule, we will not expand upon the previous legal authority discussion presented in that rule.

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551-706) specifically provides exceptions to its notice and public comment rulemaking requirements where the Agency finds there is good cause (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) to dispense with them. Generally, good cause exists where the Agency determines that notice and public procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). Today's URS final rule is being issued to delay the effective date of the original August 23, 2013, final rule. FMCSA will not have the technological ability to support the changes made by the August 23, 2013, final rule by its original effective date (October 23, 2013), which would make it impossible for motor carriers to comply with the original effective date. If FMCSA does not delay the effective date, motor carriers would find themselves unable to obtain a USDOT number, request registration, or file evidence of meeting the financial responsibility requirements, among other things. The motor carrier registration process would grind to a halt, posing potential harm to motor carriers, other FMCSA-regulated entities, drivers, and those who use their services. For these reasons, FMCSA finds good cause to dispense with notice and public comment on the effective date delaying portions of this final rule, as providing for public notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest.

    For those portions of this final rule which are correcting errors in the original August 23, 2013 final rule, we likewise find good cause to dispense with notice and public comment, as doing so is unnecessary. These correcting changes are not substantive in nature; they are being made to correct inadvertent errors and in one instance, to indicate a change in the internal delegations within the Agency. Delaying the effective date of these changes to procure notice and comment would further postpone these corrections, possibly lead to greater confusion, and thus would be contrary to the public interest.

    B. Regulatory History

    The Federal Highway Administration (FMCSA's predecessor agency) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) announcing plans to develop a single, online, Federal information system in August 1996.4 The ANPRM solicited specific detailed information from the public about each of the systems to be replaced by the URS, the conceptual design of the URS, uses and users of the information to be collected, and potential costs.

    4Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System, 61 FR 43816 (Aug. 26, 1996).

    On May 19, 2005, FMCSA published an NPRM describing a proposal to merge all of the prescribed information systems except the SSRS into a unified, online Federal system.5 The Agency subsequently revised the May 2005 proposal in an October 26, 2011, SNPRM to incorporate new congressionally mandated provisions in SAFETEA-LU, and modified certain proposals in response to comments to the NPRM.6 The SNPRM also included changes necessitated by final rules published subsequent to publication of the NPRM that directly impacted the URS. In the SNPRM, the Agency substantially altered the regulatory drafting approach proposed in the NPRM by creating a straightforward requirement for all entities to register and biennially update registration information under the new URS and by compiling a centralized cross-reference to existing safety and commercial regulations necessary for compliance with the registration requirements. The Agency abandoned previous efforts to reorganize all registration and new entrant requirements under a single part under title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) chapter III. FMCSA issued the final rule for URS on August 23, 2013.7

    5Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified Registration System, 70 FR 28990 (May 19, 2005).

    6Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unified Registration System, 76 FR 66506 (Oct. 26, 2011).

    7Final Rule, Unified Registration System, 78 FR 52608 (Aug. 23, 2013).

    Upon enactment, MAP-21 affected a number of rules already being developed by FMCSA, including this one. Because MAP-21 was enacted several months after the close of the comment period for the SNPRM, the public did not have an opportunity to comment on provisions of the Act that may have an impact on the URS. Rather than delay issuance of the August 23, 2013, final rule, and to ensure an appropriate opportunity for public participation in the changes necessitated by MAP-21, FMCSA decided to initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding(s) to address most of the needed changes.

    V. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Overview

    The section-by-section analysis from the August 23, 2013, URS final rule continues to apply to today's final rule, as today's actions delay the effective and compliance dates provided in that rule and make technical corrections and conforming amendments to that rule. The following analysis is limited to discussing these delayed dates, technical corrections and conforming amendments, and explaining how they are being reflected in the regulatory text. Because of the multiple CFRs affected by today's final rule, the Agency has determined that it is in the best interest of the regulated entities, our State partners and the general public to present the full regulatory text for the amended URS requirements, as opposed to simply correcting the effective date and errant provisions. This action will make it easier for the reader to follow.

    Throughout the regulatory text, we updated the web address for accessing the URS; the new address provides a more precise location (www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs), as opposed to the old address (www.fmcsa.dot.gov), which directed entities to the FMCSA homepage with directions to search using keywords. We also updated the way we refer to the Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, to reflect the terminology used on the FMCSA Web site.

    B. Part 360, Fees for Motor Carrier Registration and Insurance

    This final rule delays the effective dates for the amendments to sections 360.1, 360.3, and 360.5. FMCSA has determined that it would not be appropriate to collect new filing fees for each registration authority sought by an applicant until the new URS is able to support the new functionality those fees were designed to fund. Therefore, these provisions will now become effective on September 30, 2016, at the same time that the full functionality of the URS will also be available. Those new applicants using the URS online application before September 30, 2016, will pay the same fees as they would today using the current application forms and procedures. Beginning on September 30, 2016, all applicants will be charged a separate $300 fee for each distinct registration for which they apply with each entity that operates commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce paying $300 for the safety registration and $300 for each additional registration. For example, a freight forwarder operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce would pay $300 for the safety registration and $300 for registration as a freight forwarder. And a new private motor carrier of property that also seeks registration as a for-hire to enable the entity to transport freight for others on return trips would pay $300 for the safety registration and $300 for registration as a for-hire motor carrier of property. The full list of registration types that carry this $300 fee are:

    Safety Registration 8

    8 The registration required by 49 U.S.C. 31134.

    Safety Registration Operating Authority Types 9

    9 Distinct registrations authorized and required pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13901-13904 and 49 CFR part 365.

    U.S./Canada Domiciled Motor Carriers Motor Carrier, Property Motor Carrier, Property Household Goods Motor Carrier, Passenger Motor Carrier, Passenger Regular Route (only applicable to recipients of Federal transportation grants) Motor Carrier, Passenger Charter/Special Operations (only applicable to recipients of Federal transportation grants) Motor Carrier, Property Temporary Motor Carrier, Property Household Goods Temporary Motor Carrier, Passenger Temporary Motor Carrier, Property Enterprise Motor Carrier, Property Household Goods Enterprise Motor Carrier, Passenger Enterprise Mexico Domiciled Motor Carriers 10

    10 The list of distinct authority types includes all authorized operating authority registration types. The identification of an authorized operating authority registration here does not change existing policy and statutory restraints on the issuance on certain operating authority registration types for Mexico domiciled motor carriers.

    Motor Carrier, Property MX Commercial Zone Motor Carrier, Passenger MX Commercial Zone Motor Carrier, Property MX Long Haul Motor Carrier, Property Household Goods MX Long Haul Motor Carrier, Passenger Charter/Special Operations MX Long Haul Non-North American Domiciled Motor Carriers Motor Carrier, Property NNA Motor Carrier, Property Household Goods NNA Motor Carrier, Passenger NNA Brokers Broker, Property Broker, Property Household Goods Freight Forwarders Freight Forwarder, Property Freight Forwarder, Property Household Goods
    C. Part 365, Rules Governing Applications for Operating Authority

    This final rule will delay the effective dates for the amendments to sections 365.101, 365.103, 365.105, 365.107, 365.109, 365.110, 365.111, 365.119, 365.201, 365.203, 365.301, 365.401, 365.403, 365.405, 365.507, and 365.509.

    This final rule also adds temporary § 365.T106, which will be in effect from December 12, 2015, through September 29, 2016. Under this temporary section, new applicants, defined as U.S.- or Canada-domiciled entities that do not have (and have never had) an active USDOT, MC, MX, or FF Number, must apply for a USDOT number and, if applicable, operating authority using the URS online application, available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs. These applications will be processed using the same legacy systems available to FMCSA today, and will be transitioned over to the complete URS database with those records that already exist in the legacy systems. Applicants will have the ability to print out a summary of their online application after their application is complete and their fee is paid.

    D. Part 366, Designation of Process Agent

    This final rule will delay the effective dates for the revisions to sections 366.1, 366.2, 366.3, 366.4, 366.5, and 366.6. The requirement for electronic filing of Form BOC-3, designation of process agent, comes into effect on September 30, 2016; however, entities already registered with FMCSA as of that date will not be required to comply until December 31, 2016. The URS will have the ability to collect the Form BOC-3 filings on September 30, 2016, and we encourage motor carriers and freight forwarders to comply with this requirement as early as they can. In addition, this final rule will no longer make a distinction between private motor carriers or exempt freight forwarders when it comes to compliance dates. The system will be able to receive all notices at the same time, and all are being provided with additional time than originally included in the August 23, 2013 final rule. Note that after September 30, 2016, new applicants (i.e. entities that have not registered with FMCSA prior to September 30, 2016) will need to ensure a Form BOC-3 is submitted before registration will be granted.

    E. Part 368, Application for a Certificate of Registration To Operate in Municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico International Border or Within the Commercial Zones of Such Municipalities

    This final rule delays the effective date for the revisions in sections 368.3, 368.4, and 368.8 until September 30, 2016, when FMCSA estimates the URS online application will be available for all users, and the majority of the functionality of the URS will be fully available.

    This final rule also adds temporary § 368.T3, which will be in effect from December 12, 2015, through September 29, 2016. Under this temporary section, new applicants, defined as citizens of Mexico or motor carriers owned or controlled by a citizen of Mexico, who do not have (and have never had) an active USDOT, MC, MX, or FF number, must apply for a USDOT number and, if applicable, operating authority using the URS online application, available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs. These applications will be processed using the same legacy systems available to FMCSA today, and will be transitioned over to the complete URS database with those records that already exist in the legacy systems. Applicants will have the ability to print out a summary of their online application after their application is complete and their fee is paid.

    Section 368.8 also has a minor change. We have removed the last sentence, which indicated that the Director's decision would serve as the final Agency order in appeals after denials of applications. However, the Director no longer has the authority to make these decisions, as that authority has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator. The change is being made to the regulation to reflect this change in delegation.

    F. Part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures

    This final rule delays the effective date for the revisions in sections 385.301, 385.303, 385.305, 385.329, 385.405, 385.409, 385.419, 385.421, 385.603, 385.607, 385.609, and 385.713 until September 30, 2016, when FMCSA estimates the URS online application will be available for all users, and the majority of the functionality of the URS will be fully available. No additional changes have been made to the provisions found in the listed sections; they appear here as they did in the August 23, 2013 URS final rule.

    G. Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers

    This final rule delays the effective date for the revisions in sections 387.19, 387.33, 387.43, 387.301, 387.303, 387.313, 387.323, 387.403, 387.413, and 387.419 until September 30, 2016, when FMCSA estimates the URS online application will be available for all users, and the majority of the functionality of the URS will be fully available.

    It also provides for a three-month compliance period for private hazardous materials and exempt for-hire motor carriers, registered with FMCSA as of September 30, 2016, to complete their electronic filing requirements. This compliance period ends on December 31, 2016. These provisions can be found in sections 387.19 and 387.43. The URS will have the ability to collect the financial responsibility filings for private hazardous materials and exempt for-hire motor carriers on September 30, 2016. We encourage insurers of these motor carriers to comply as early as they can. Note that after September 30, 2016, new applicants (i.e., entities that have not registered with FMCSA prior to September 30, 2016) will be required to submit their evidence of meeting the financial responsibility requirements before registration will be granted.

    This final rule adds a change to § 387.403. On October 1, 2013, FMCSA issued a final rule to implement section 32918 of MAP-21, which amended 49 U.S.C. 13906 to require a minimum surety bond or trust fund of $75,000 and extended the bond requirement from brokers to freight forwarders. The October 1 final rule added paragraph (c) to § 387.403 to implement this change. It was not reflected in the August 23, 2013, URS final rule, and without this change, new paragraph (c) would be removed when today's final rule goes into effect. We have therefore revised § 387.403 to include paragraph (c) to ensure it remains intact after today's rule goes into effect.

    H. Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, General

    This final rule will delay the effective dates for the amendments to sections 390.3, 390.5, 390.19,11 390.21, 390.40, 390.201, 390.203, 390.205, 390.207, and 390.209.

    11 The August 23, 2013 final rule contained an amendment to § 390.19 that went into effect on November 1, 2013. Today's document does not impact that amendment.

    This final rule also adds temporary Subpart E, consisting of § 390.T200, which will be in effect from December 12, 2015, through September 29, 2016. Under this temporary section, new applicants, defined as entities who do not have (and have never had) an active USDOT Number, must apply for a USDOT Number using the URS online application, available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs. These applications will be processed using the same legacy systems available to FMCSA today, and will be transitioned over to the complete URS database with those records that already exist in the legacy systems. Applicants will have the ability to print out a summary of their online application after their application is complete.

    This final rule incorporates a number of corrections to § 390.3 that were made in a correcting document published on October 23, 2013.12 Because these corrections appear in the regulatory text laid out below, we are withdrawing the associated amendatory instructions from the October 23, 2013, correcting document. This change has no impact, but is necessary to ensure proper codification of the provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations. This final rule is also correcting an erroneous cross reference that was included in the August 23, 2013, final rule. In § 390.207(c), there is a cross reference to Subpart D as applying to intermodal equipment providers. This is incorrect; Subpart D covers the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. Subpart C of Part 390 is the appropriate cross reference, as it covers “Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment.” FMCSA is also correcting the authority citation for part 390. The August 23, 2013, final rule inadvertently omitted some of the statutory authorities granted to FMCSA, and today's final rule is adding them back. As these authorities have remained in effect, there is no substantive impact from this change.

    12 78 FR 63100, October 23, 2013.

    I. Part 392, Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles

    Today's final rule corrects the authority citation for part 392. The August 23, 2013, final rule inadvertently omitted some of the statutory authorities granted to FMCSA, and today's final rule is adding them back. As these authorities have remained in effect, there is no substantive impact from this change.

    VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that today's final rule delaying the effective date of the URS rules is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, or within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. We do not expect today's final rule to have any new costs; today's action delaying the effective date will also delay the associated costs of the August 23, 2013, final rule. As discussed previously, this delay action is necessary because the URS technological solution, required to implement the URS final rule, is not ready. Not delaying the URS final rule may result in additional costs, as allowing the URS final rule to come into effect without having the required technological pieces (such as the URS online application and the integrated database required by statute) would require motor carriers, freight forwarders, brokers, and others to use a system that does not exist, with no alternative for seeking registration authorities. This could lead to a delay in processing registrations, which could then impact the applicants. Delaying the effective date of the URS final rule avoids these potential costs, without adding new costs over what was originally estimated in the August 2013 RIA. The August 2013 RIA can be found in the docket for today's final rule.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis. This is because this rule does not require publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. However, in compliance with the RFA, FMCSA has evaluated the effects of today's final rule on small entities, and determined that delaying the effective date for the URS final rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the Administrator of FMCSA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Today's final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million (which is the value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for inflation) or more in any 1 year.

    D. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Agency analyzed today's final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action is categorically excluded (CE) under Appendix 2, paragraphs 6(e), 6(h) and 6(y)(2) of the Order from further environmental documentation. The CE under Appendix 2, paragraph 6(e) relates to establishing regulations and actions taken pursuant to the requirements concerning applications for operating authority and certificates of registration. The CE under Appendix 2, paragraph 6(h), relates to establishing regulations and actions taken pursuant to the requirements implementing procedures to collect fees that will be charged for motor carrier registrations and insurance for the following activities: (1) Application filings; (2) records searches; and (3) reviewing, copying, certifying, and related services. The CE under Appendix 2, paragraph 6(y)(2), addresses regulations implementing motor carrier identification and registration reports. In addition, the Agency believes that this rule includes no extraordinary circumstances that will have any effect on the quality of the human environment. Thus, today's rule does not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

    FMCSA also has analyzed today's rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement because it involves policy development and rulemaking activities regarding registration of regulated entities with FMCSA for commercial, safety and financial responsibility purposes. See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(vi). The changes would not result in any emissions increases, nor will they have any potential to result in emissions that are above the general conformity rule's de minimis emission threshold levels. Moreover, it is reasonably foreseeable that the actions will not increase total CMV mileage or change the routing of CMVs, how CMVs operate, or the CMV fleet-mix of motor carriers.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a Federal Agency must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. The FMCSA analyzed the August 23, 2013, final rule and determined that its implementation would streamline the information collection burden on motor carriers and other regulated entities, relative to the baseline, or current paperwork collection processes. This included streamlining the FMCSA registration, insurance, and designation of process agent filing processes and implementing mandatory electronic online filing of these applications, as well as eliminating some outdated filing requirements. A full analysis of the impacted collections of information, both existing and new, can be found in that final rule,13 a copy of which is in the docket for today's final rule. Today's final rule makes no changes to the collections described in that final rule.

    13 See 78 FR 52608, 52642.

    F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    Today's final rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires that agencies issuing economically significant rules, which also concern an environmental health or safety risk that an Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, must include an evaluation of the environmental health and safety effects of the regulation on children. Section 5 of Executive Order 13045 directs an Agency to submit for a covered regulatory action an evaluation of its environmental health or safety effects on children. Today's final rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The FMCSA consulted with State licensing agencies participating in its PRISM Program to discuss anticipated impacts of the May 2005 NPRM upon their operations. The Agency has taken into consideration their comments in its decision-making process for this rule. Thus, FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have significant Federalism implications or limit the policymaking discretion of the States.

    J. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to today's final rule.

    K. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” and has determined that this is not a significant energy action within the meaning of section 4(b) of the Executive Order. Today's final rule is not economically significant, and will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    L. Privacy Impact Analysis

    The FMCSA conducted a privacy impact assessment of the August 23, 2013, final rule as required by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) [set out as a note to 5 U.S.C. 552a]. The assessment considered any impacts of the final rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and related matters. FMCSA determined that the August 23, 2013, final rule will impact the handling of personally identifiable information (PII). FMCSA also determined the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing PII and examined and evaluated protections and alternative information handling processes in order to mitigate potential privacy risks. Today's final rule makes no changes to the information being collected, or to the manner that it is stored and shared. FMCSA believes that the PIA for the August 23, 2013, final rule adequately covers today's action; that PIA remains available for review in the docket for today's final rule.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 360

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight forwarders, Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Insurance, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of household goods, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    49 CFR Part 365

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods.

    49 CFR Part 366

    Brokers, Motor carriers, Freight forwarders, Process agents.

    49 CFR Part 368

    Administrative practice and procedure, Insurance, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 387

    Buses, Freight, Freight forwarders, Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of household goods, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 392

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR chapter III, subchapter B, parts 360, 365, 366, 368, 385, 387, 390, and 392, as set forth below:

    1. Effective September 30, 2016, revise part 360 to read as follows: PART 360—FEES FOR MOTOR CARRIER REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE 360.1 Fees for registration-related services. 360.3 Filing fees. 360.5 Updating user fees. Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 13908; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 360.1 Fees for registration-related services.

    Certifications and copies of public records and documents on file with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will be furnished on the following basis, pursuant to USDOT Freedom of Information Act regulations at 49 CFR part 7:

    (a) Certificate of the Director, Office of Management and Information Services, as to the authenticity of documents, $12;

    (b) Service involved in locating records to be certified and determining their authenticity, including clerical and administrative work, at the rate of $21 per hour;

    (c) Copies of the public documents, at the rate of $.80 per letter size or legal size exposure. A minimum charge of $5 will be made for this service; and

    (d) Search and copying services requiring information technology (IT), as follows:

    (1) A fee of $50 per hour for professional staff time will be charged when it is required to fulfill a request for electronic data.

    (2) The fee for computer searches will be set at the current rate for computer service. Information on those charges can be obtained from the Office of Information Technology (MC-RI).

    (3) Printing will be charged at the rate of $.10 per page of computer-generated output with a minimum charge of $1. There will also be a charge for the media provided (e.g., CD ROMs) based on the Agency's costs for such media.

    (e) Exception. No fee shall be charged under this section to the following entities:

    (1) Any Agency of the Federal Government or a State government or any political subdivision of any such government for access to or retrieval of information and data from the Unified Carrier Registration System for its own use; or

    (2) Any representative of a motor carrier, motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder (as each is defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102) for the access to or retrieval of the information related to such entity from the Unified Carrier Registration System for the individual use of such entity.

    § 360.3 Filing fees.

    (a) Manner of payment. (1) Except for the insurance fees described in the next sentence, all filing fees must be paid at the time the application, petition, or other document is electronically filed. The service fee for insurance, surety or self-insurer accepted certificate of insurance, surety bond or other instrument submitted in lieu of a broker surety bond must be charged to an insurance service account established by FMCSA in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) Billing account procedure. A request must be submitted to the Office of Registration and Safety Information (MC-RS) at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov to establish an insurance service fee account.

    (i) Each account will have a specific billing date within each month and a billing cycle. The billing date is the date that the bill is prepared and printed. The billing cycle is the period between the billing date in one month and the billing date in the next month. A bill for each account that has activity or an unpaid balance during the billing cycle will be sent on the billing date each month. Payment will be due 20 days from the billing date. Payments received before the next billing date are applied to the account. Interest will accrue in accordance with 31 CFR 901.9.

    (ii) The Federal Claims Collection Standards, including disclosure to consumer reporting agencies and the use of collection agencies, as set forth in 31 CFR part 901, will be utilized to encourage payment where appropriate.

    (iii) An account holder who files a petition for bankruptcy or who is the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding must provide the following information to the Office of Registration and Safety Information (MC-RS) at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov:

    (A) The filing date of the bankruptcy petition;

    (B) The court in which the bankruptcy petition was filed;

    (C) The type of bankruptcy proceeding;

    (D) The name, address, and telephone number of its representative in the bankruptcy proceeding; and

    (E) The name, address, and telephone number of the bankruptcy trustee, if one has been appointed.

    (3) Fees will be payable through the U.S. Department of Treasury secure payment system, Pay.gov, and are made directly from the payor's bank account or by credit/debit card.

    (b) Any filing that is not accompanied by the appropriate filing fee will be rejected.

    (c) Fees not refundable. Fees will be assessed for every filing listed in the schedule of fees contained in paragraph (f) of this section, titled, “Schedule of filing fees,” subject to the exceptions contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. After the application, petition, or other document has been accepted for filing by FMCSA, the filing fee will not be refunded, regardless of whether the application, petition, or other document is granted or approved, denied, rejected before docketing, dismissed, or withdrawn.

    (d) Multiple authorities. (1) A separate filing fee is required for each type of authority sought, for example broker authority requested by an entity that already holds motor property carrier authority or multiple types of authority requested in the same application.

    (2) Separate fees will be assessed for the filing of temporary operating authority applications as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, regardless of whether such applications are related to an application for corresponding permanent operating authority.

    (e) Waiver or reduction of filing fees. It is the general policy of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration not to waive or reduce filing fees except as follows:

    (1) Filing fees are waived for an application that is filed by a Federal government agency, or a State or local government entity. For purposes of this section the phrases “Federal government agency” or “government entity” do not include a quasi-governmental corporation or government subsidized transportation company.

    (2) Filing fees are waived for a motor carrier of passengers that receives a grant from the Federal Transit Administration either directly or through a third-party contract to provide passenger transportation under an agreement with a State or local government pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, 5311, 5316, or 5317.

    (3) The FMCSA will consider other requests for waivers or fee reductions only in extraordinary situations and in accordance with the following procedure:

    (i) When to request. At the time that a filing is submitted to FMCSA, the applicant may request a waiver or reduction of the fee prescribed in this part. Such request should be addressed to the Director, Office of Registration and Safety Information.

    (ii) Basis. The applicant must show that the waiver or reduction of the fee is in the best interest of the public, or that payment of the fee would impose an undue hardship upon the requester.

    (iii) FMCSA action. The Director, Office of Registration and Safety Information, will notify the applicant of the decision to grant or deny the request for waiver or reduction.

    (f) Schedule of filing fees:

    Type of proceeding Fee Part I: Registration (1) An application for USDOT Registration pursuant to 49 CFR part 390, subpart E $300. (2) An application for motor carrier temporary authority to provide emergency relief in response to a national emergency or natural disaster following an emergency declaration under § 390.23 of this subchapter $100. (3) Biennial update of registration $0. (4) Request for change of name, address, or form of business $0. (5) Request for cancellation of registration $0. (6) Request for registration reinstatement $10. (7) Designation of process agent $0. (8) Notification of Transfer of Operating Authority $0. Part II: Insurance (9) A service fee for insurer, surety, or self-insurer accepted certificate of insurance, surety bond, and other instrument submitted in lieu of a broker surety bond $10 per accepted certificate, surety bond or other instrument submitted in lieu of a broker surety bond. (10) (i) An application for original qualification as self-insurer for bodily injury and property damage insurance (BI&PD) $4,200. (ii) An application for original qualification as self-insurer for cargo insurance $420.
    § 360.5 Updating user fees.

    (a) Update. Each fee established in this subpart may be updated, as deemed necessary by FMCSA.

    (b) Publication and effective dates. Notice of updated fees shall be published in the Federal Register and shall become effective 30 days after publication.

    (c) Payment of fees. Any person submitting a filing for which a filing fee is established must pay the fee applicable on the date of the filing or request for services.

    (d) Method of updating fees. Each fee shall be updated by updating the cost components comprising the fee. However, fees shall not exceed the maximum amounts established by law. Cost components shall be updated as follows:

    (1) Direct labor costs shall be updated by multiplying base level direct labor costs by percentage changes in average wages and salaries of FMCSA employees. Base level direct labor costs are direct labor costs determined by the cost study in Regulations Governing Fees For Service, 1 I.C.C. 2d 60 (1984), or subsequent cost studies. The base period for measuring changes shall be April 1984 or the year of the last cost study.

    (2) Operations overhead shall be developed on the basis of current relationships existing on a weighted basis, for indirect labor applicable to the first supervisory work centers directly associated with user fee activity. Actual updating of operations overhead shall be accomplished by applying the current percentage factor to updated direct labor, including current governmental overhead costs.

    (3)(i) Office general and administrative costs shall be developed on the basis of current levels costs, i.e., dividing actual office general and administrative costs for the current fiscal year by total office costs for the office directly associated with user fee activity. Actual updating of office general and administrative costs shall be accomplished by applying the current percentage factor to updated direct labor, including current governmental overhead and current operations overhead costs.

    (ii) The FMCSA general and administrative costs shall be developed on the basis of current level costs; i.e., dividing actual FMCSA general and administrative costs for the current fiscal year by total Agency expenses for the current fiscal year. Actual updating of FMCSA general and administrative costs shall be accomplished by applying the current percentage factor to updated direct labor, including current governmental overhead, operations overhead and office general and administrative costs.

    (4) Publication costs shall be adjusted on the basis of known changes in the costs applicable to publication of material in the Federal Register or FMCSA Register.

    (e) Rounding of updated fees. Updated fees shall be rounded as follows. (This rounding procedure excludes copying, printing and search fees.)

    (1) Fees between $1 and $30 shall be rounded to the nearest $1;

    (2) Fees between $30 and $100 shall be rounded to the nearest $10;

    (3) Fees between $100 and $999 shall be rounded to the nearest $50; and

    (4) Fees above $1,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $100.

    PART 365—RULES GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING AUTHORITY 2. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 365 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13901-13906, 13908, 14708, 31133, 31138, and 31144; 49 CFR 1.87.

    3. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 365.101 by revising paragraphs (a) and (h) to read as follows:
    § 365.101 Applications governed by these rules.

    (a) Applications for certificates of motor carrier registration to operate as a motor carrier of property or passengers.

    (h) Applications for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate in foreign commerce as for-hire or private motor carriers of property (including exempt items) between Mexico and all points in the United States. Under NAFTA Annex 1, page I-U-20, a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier may not provide point-to-point transportation services, including express delivery services, within the United States for goods other than international cargo.

    4. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 365.105 to read as follows:
    § 365.105 Starting the application process: Form MCSA-1.

    (a) Each applicant must apply for operating authority by electronically filing Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, to request authority pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13902, 13903 or 13904 to operate as a:

    (1) Motor carrier of property or passengers,

    (2) Broker of general commodities or household goods, or

    (3) Freight forwarder of general commodities or household goods.

    (b) A separate filing fee in the amount set forth at 49 CFR 360.3(f) is required for each type of authority sought in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Form MCSA-1 is the URS online application and is available, including complete instructions, from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    5. Effective December 12, 2015 until September 29, 2016, add § 365.T106 to read as follows:
    § 365.T106 Starting the application process: URS online application.

    (a) Notwithstanding § 365.105, new applicants as defined in paragraph (b) of this section must apply for a USDOT number and if applicable, operating authority by electronically filing Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, to request authority pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13902, 13903, or 13904 to operate as a:

    (1) Motor carrier of property (not household goods), property (household goods) or passengers,

    (2) Broker of general commodities or household goods, or

    (3) Freight forwarder of general commodities or household goods.

    (b) For purposes of this section, a “new applicant” is an entity applying for a USDOT number and if applicable, operating authority who does not at the time of application have an active registration or USDOT, Motor Carrier (MC), Mexico owned or controlled (MX) or Freight Forwarder (FF) number, and who has never had an active registration or USDOT, MC, MX, or FF number.

    (c) Form MCSA-1 is the URS online application, and both the application and its instructions are available from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (d) This section is in effect from December 12, 2015 through September 29, 2016.

    6. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 365.107 to read as follows:
    § 365.107 Types of applications.

    (a) Fitness applications. Motor property applications and certain types of motor passenger applications require the finding that the applicant is fit, willing and able to perform the involved operations and to comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. These applications can be opposed only on the grounds that applicant is not fit [e.g., is not in compliance with applicable financial responsibility and safety fitness requirements]. These applications are:

    (1) Motor carrier of property (except household goods).

    (2) Broker of general commodities or household goods.

    (3) Certain types of motor carrier of passenger applications as described in Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (b) Motor carrier of passenger “public interest” applications as described in Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (c) Intrastate motor passenger applications under 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) as described in Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (d) Motor carrier of household goods applications, including Mexico- or non-North America-domiciled carrier applicants. In addition to meeting the fitness standard under paragraph (a) of this section, an applicant seeking authority to operate as a motor carrier of household goods must:

    (1) Provide evidence of participation in an arbitration program and provide a copy of the notice of the arbitration program as required by 49 U.S.C. 14708(b)(2);

    (2) Identify its tariff and provide a copy of the notice of the availability of that tariff for inspection as required by 49 U.S.C. 13702(c);

    (3) Provide evidence that it has access to, has read, is familiar with, and will observe all applicable Federal laws relating to consumer protection, estimating, consumers' rights and responsibilities, and options for limitations of liability for loss and damage; and

    (4) Disclose any relationship involving common stock, common ownership, common management, or common familial relationships between the applicant and any other motor carrier, freight forwarder, or broker of household goods within 3 years of the proposed date of registration.

    (e) Temporary authority (TA) for motor carriers. These applications require a finding that there is or soon will be an immediate transportation need that cannot be met by existing carrier service.

    (1) Applications for TA will be entertained only when an emergency declaration has been made pursuant to § 390.23 of this subchapter.

    (2) Temporary authority must be requested by filing the URS online application, Form MCSA-1, found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (3) Applications for temporary authority are not subject to protest.

    (4) Motor carriers granted temporary authority must comply with financial responsibility requirements under part 387 of this subchapter.

    (5) Only a U.S.-domiciled motor carrier is eligible to receive temporary authority.

    7. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 365.109 by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 365.109 FMCSA review of the application.

    (a) * * *

    (5) All applicants must file the appropriate evidence of financial responsibility pursuant to 49 CFR part 387 within 90 days from the date notice of the application is published in the FMCSA Register:

    (i) Form BMC-91 or 91X or BMC 82 surety bond—Bodily injury and property damage (motor property and passenger carriers; and freight forwarders that provide pickup or delivery service directly or by using a local delivery service under their control),

    (ii) Form BMC-84—Surety bond or Form BMC-85—trust fund agreement (property brokers of general commodities and household goods).

    (iii) Form BMC-34 or BMC 83 surety bond—Cargo liability (household goods motor carriers and household goods freight forwarders).

    (6) Applicants also must submit Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders—within 90 days from the date notice of the application is published in the FMCSA Register.

    (b) A summary of the application will be published in the FMCSA Register to give notice to the public in case anyone wishes to oppose the application.

    8. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 365.110 to read as follows:
    § 365.110 Need to complete New Entrant Safety Assurance Program.

    For motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132, operating authority obtained under procedures in this part does not become permanent until the applicant satisfactorily completes the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program in part 385 of this subchapter.

    9. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 365.111 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 365.111 Appeals to rejections of the application.

    (a) An applicant has the right to appeal rejection of the application. The appeal must be filed at the FMCSA, Office of Registration and Safety Information, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, within 10 days of the date of the letter of rejection.

    10. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 365.119 to read as follows:
    § 365.119 Opposed applications.

    If the application is opposed, opposing parties are required to send a copy of their protest to the applicant and to FMCSA. All protests must include statements made under oath (verified statements). There are no personal appearances or formal hearings.

    11. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 365.201 to read as follows:
    § 365.201 Definitions.

    A person wishing to oppose a request for operating authority files a protest. A person filing a valid protest is known as a protestant.

    12. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 365.203 to read as follows:
    § 365.203 Time for filing.

    A protest shall be filed (received at the FMCSA, Office of the Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590) within 10 days after notice of the application appears in the FMCSA Register. A copy of the protest shall be sent to applicant's representative at the same time. Failure timely to file a protest waives further participation in the proceeding.

    13. Effective September 30, 2016, revise Subpart D to read as follows: Subpart D—Transfers of Operating Authority Sec. 365.401 Scope of rules. 365.403 Definitions. 365.405 Reporting requirement. Subpart D—Transfers of Operating Authority
    § 365.401 Scope of rules.

    The rules in this subpart define the procedures for motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders to report to FMCSA transactions that result in the transfer of operating authority and are not subject to approval by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board under 49 U.S.C. 14303.

    § 365.403 Definitions.

    For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:

    (a) Transfer. A transfer means any transaction in which an operating authority issued to one person is taken over by another person or persons who assume legal responsibility for the operations. Such transactions include a purchase of all or some of the assets of a company, a merger of two or more companies, or acquisition of controlling interest in a company through a purchase of company stock.

    (b) Operating authority. Operating authority means a registration required by 49 U.S.C. 13902 issued to motor carriers; 49 U.S.C. 13903 issued to freight forwarders; and 49 U.S.C. 13904 issued to brokers.

    (c) Person. An individual, partnership, corporation, company, association, or other form of business, or a trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative of any of these entities.

    § 365.405 Reporting requirement.

    (a) Every transfer of operating authority from one person to another person must be reported by both the transferee and transferor using the URS online application, Form MCSA-1, (available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs) in accordance with § 390.201(d)(5) of this subchapter.

    (b) The following information must be furnished:

    (1) Full name, address and USDOT Numbers of the transferee and transferor.

    (2) A copy of the operating authority being transferred.

    14. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 365.507 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
    § 365.507 FMCSA action on the application.

    (e) * * *

    (2) Electronically file, or have its process agent(s) electronically file, Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, as required by part 366 of this subchapter; and

    15. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 365.509 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 365.509 Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in applicant information.

    (a) A motor carrier subject to this subpart must notify FMCSA of any changes or corrections to the information in parts I, IA, or II of Form OP-1(MX), or in Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, during the application process or after having been granted provisional operating authority. The carrier must notify FMCSA in writing within 30 days of the change or correction.

    PART 366—DESIGNATION OF PROCESS AGENT 16. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 366 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 502, 503, 13303, 13304 and 13908; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    17. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 366.1 to read as follows:
    § 366.1 Applicability.

    The rules in this part, relating to the filing of designations of persons upon whom court or Agency process may be served, apply to for-hire and private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders and, as of the moment of succession, their fiduciaries (as defined at 49 CFR 387.319(a)).

    18. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 366.2 to read as follows:
    § 366.2 Form of designation.

    (a) Designations shall be made on Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders. Only one completed current form may be on file. It must include all States for which agent designations are required. One copy must be retained by the carrier, broker or freight forwarder at its principal place of business.

    (b) All Motor Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders that are registered with FMCSA on September 30, 2016 must file their Form BOC-3 designation by no later than December 31, 2016. All other Motor Carriers, Brokers, and Freight Forwarders must file the FORM BOC-3 designation at the time of their application for registration. Failure to file a designation in accordance with this paragraph will result in deactivation of the carrier's USDOT Number.

    19. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 366.3 to read as follows:
    § 366.3 Eligible persons.

    All persons (as defined at 49 U.S.C. 13102(18)) designated as process agents must reside in or maintain an office in the State for which they are designated. If a State official is designated, evidence of his or her willingness to accept service of process must be furnished.

    20. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 366.4 to read as follows:
    § 366.4 Required States.

    (a) Motor carriers. Every motor carrier must designate process agents for all 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, unless its operating authority registration is limited to fewer than 48 States and DC. When a motor carrier's operating authority registration is limited to fewer than 48 States and DC, it must designate process agents for each State in which it is authorized to operate and for each State traversed during such operations. Every motor carrier operating in the United States in the course of transportation between points in a foreign country shall file a designation for each State traversed.

    (b) Brokers. Every broker shall make a designation for each State, including DC, in which its offices are located or in which contracts will be written.

    (c) Freight forwarders. Every freight forwarder shall make a designation for each State, including DC, in which its offices are located or in which contracts will be written.

    21. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 366.5 to read as follows:
    § 366.5 Blanket designations.

    Where an association or corporation has filed with the FMCSA a list of process agents for each State and DC (blanket agent), motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders may make the required designations by using the following statement:

    I designate those persons named in the list of process agents on file with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

    by (name of association or corporation) and any subsequently filed revisions thereof, for the States in which this carrier is or may be authorized to operate (or arrange) as an entity of motor vehicle transportation, including States traversed during such operations, except those States for which individual designations are named.
    22. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 366.6 to read as follows:
    § 366.6 Cancellation or change.

    (a) A designation may be canceled or changed only by a new designation made by the motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder, or by the process agent or company filing a blanket designation in accordance with § 366.5. However, where a motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder's USDOT Number is inactive for at least 1 year, designation is no longer required and may be canceled without making another designation.

    (b) A change to a designation, such as name, address, or contact information, must be reported to FMCSA within 30 days of the change.

    (c) Whenever a motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder changes it name, address, or contact information, it must report the change to its process agents and/or the company making a blanket designation on its behalf in accordance with § 366.5 within 30 days of the change.

    (d) Whenever a process agent and/or company making a blanket designation on behalf of a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder terminates its contract or relationship with the entity, it should report the termination to FMCSA within 30 days of the termination. If process agents and/or blanket agents do not keep their information up to date, FMCSA may withdraw its approval of their authority to make process agent designations with the Agency.

    PART 368—APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION TO OPERATE IN MUNICIPALITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ON THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO INTERNATIONAL BORDER OR WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES OF SUCH MUNICIPALITIES 23. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 368 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 13902 and 13908; Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    24. Effective December 12, 2015 until September 29, 2016, add § 368.T3 to read as follows:
    § 368.T3 Starting the application process: URS online application.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, new applicants as defined in paragraph (b) of this section must apply for a USDOT number and operating authority by electronically filing Form MCSA-1, the URS online application (available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs) to request authority pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13902 to provide interstate transportation in municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico international border or within the commercial zones of such municipalities as defined in 49 U.S.C. 13902(c)(4)(A).

    (b) For purposes of this section, a “new applicant” is an citizen of Mexico or a motor carrier owned or controlled by a citizen of Mexico, applying for a USDOT number and operating authority who does not at the time of application have an active registration or USDOT, Motor Carrier (MC), Mexico owned or controlled (MX) or Freight Forwarder (FF) number, and who has never had an active registration or USDOT, MC, MX, or FF number.

    (c) Form MCSA-1, is the URS online application, and both the application and its instructions are available from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (d) This section is in effect from December 12, 2015 through September 29, 2016.

    25. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 368.3 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (f) to read as follows:
    § 368.3 Applying for a certificate of registration.

    (a) If you wish to obtain a certificate of registration under this part, you must electronically file an application that includes the following:

    (1) Form MCSA-1—URS online application.

    (2) Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders or indicate on the application that the applicant will use a process agent service that will submit the Form BOC-3 electronically.

    (b) The FMCSA will only process your application for a Certificate of Registration if it meets the following conditions:

    (1) The application must be completed in English;

    (2) The information supplied must be accurate and complete in accordance with the instructions to Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, and Form BOC-3.

    (3) The application must include all the required supporting documents and applicable certifications set forth in the instructions to Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, and Form BOC-3.

    (f) Form MCSA-1 is the URS online application and is available, including complete instructions, from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    26. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 368.4 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 368.4 Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in applicant information.

    (a) You must notify FMCSA of any changes or corrections to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, or the Form BOC-3, Designation of Agents-Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, during the application process or while you have a Certificate of Registration. You must notify FMCSA in writing within 30 days of the change or correction.

    27. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 368.8 to read as follows:
    § 368.8 Appeals.

    An applicant has the right to appeal denial of the application. The appeal must be in writing and specify in detail why the Agency's decision to deny the application was wrong. The appeal must be filed with the FMCSA, Office of Registration and Safety Information within 20 days of the date of the letter denying the application.

    PART 385—SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES 28. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 385 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 5113, 13901-13905, 13908, 31136, 31144, 31148, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 350 of Pub. L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    29. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 385.301 to read as follows:
    § 385.301 What is a motor carrier required to do before beginning interstate operations?

    (a) Before a motor carrier of property or passengers begins interstate operations, it must register with FMCSA and receive a USDOT Number. In addition, for-hire motor carriers must obtain operating authority from FMCSA, unless exclusively providing transportation exempt from the commercial registration requirements in 49 U.S.C. chapter 139. Both the USDOT Number and operating authority are obtained by following registration procedures described in 49 CFR part 390, subpart E. Part 365 of this chapter provides detailed instructions for obtaining operating authority.

    (b) This subpart applies to motor carriers domiciled in the United States and Canada.

    (c) The regulations in this subpart do not apply to a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier. A Mexico-domiciled motor carrier of property or passengers must register with FMCSA by following the registration procedures described in 49 CFR parts 365, 368 and 390. Parts 365 (for long-haul carriers) and 368 (for commercial zone carriers) of this chapter provide detailed information about how a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier may obtain operating authority.

    30. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 385.303 to read as follows:
    § 385.303 How does a motor carrier register with the FMCSA?

    A motor carrier registers with FMCSA by completing Form MCSA-1, the URS online application which is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs. Complete instructions for the Form MCSA-1 also are available at the same location.

    31. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 385.305 to read as follows:
    § 385.305 What happens after the FMCSA receives a request for new entrant registration?

    (a) The applicant for new entrant registration will be directed to the FMCSA Internet Web site (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov) to secure and/or complete the application package online.

    (b) The application package will include the following:

    (1) Educational and technical assistance material regarding the requirements of the FMCSRs and HMRs, if applicable.

    (2) Form MCSA-, the URS online application. This form is used to obtain both a USDOT Number and operating authority.

    (c) Upon completion of the application form, the new entrant will be issued an inactive USDOT Number. An applicant may not begin operations nor mark a commercial motor vehicle with the USDOT Number until after the date of the Agency's written notice that the USDOT Number has been activated. Violations of this section may be subject to the penalties under § 392.9b(b) of this chapter.

    (d) Additional requirements for certain for-hire motor carriers. For-hire motor carriers, unless providing transportation exempt from the commercial registration requirements in 49 U.S.C. chapter 139, must obtain operating authority as prescribed under § 390.201(b) and part 365 of this chapter before operating in interstate commerce.

    32. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 385.329 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (c)(1) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 385.329 May a new entrant that has had its USDOT new entrant registration revoked and its operations placed out of service reapply?

    (b) If the USDOT new entrant registration was revoked because of a failed safety audit, the new entrant must do all of the following:

    (1) Submit an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Submit an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (d) If the new entrant is a for-hire motor carrier subject to the registration provisions of 49 U.S.C. chapter 139 and also has had its operating authority revoked, it must re-apply for operating authority as set forth in § 390.201(b) and part 365 of this chapter.

    33. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 385.405 to read as follows:
    § 385.405 How does a motor carrier apply for a safety permit?

    (a) Application form. (1) To apply for a new safety permit or renewal of the safety permit, a motor carrier must complete and submit Form MCSA-1, the URS online application and meet the requirements under 49 CFR part 390, subpart E.

    (2) Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, will also satisfy the requirements for obtaining and renewing a USDOT Number.

    (b) Where to get forms and instructions. Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, is available, including complete instructions, at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (c) Signature and certification. An official of the motor carrier must sign and certify that the information is correct on each form the motor carrier submits.

    (d) Updating information. A motor carrier holding a safety permit must report to FMCSA any change in the information on its Form MCSA-1 within 30 days of the change. The motor carrier must use Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, to report the new information.

    34. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 385.409 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 385.409 When may a temporary safety permit be issued to a motor carrier?

    (a) Temporary safety permit. If a motor carrier does not meet the criteria of § 385.407(a), FMCSA may issue it a temporary safety permit. To obtain a temporary safety permit, a motor carrier must certify on Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, that it is operating in full compliance with the HMRs, with the FMCSRs, and/or comparable State regulations, whichever is applicable; and with the minimum financial responsibility requirements in part 387 of this subchapter or in State regulations, whichever is applicable.

    35. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 385.419 to read as follows:
    § 385.419 How long is a safety permit effective?

    Unless suspended or revoked, a safety permit (other than a temporary safety permit) is effective for two years, except that:

    (a) A safety permit will be subject to revocation if a motor carrier fails to submit a renewal application (Form MCSA-1, the URS online application) in accordance with the schedule set forth for filing Form MCSA-1 in part 390, subpart E, of this subchapter; and

    (b) An existing safety permit will remain in effect pending FMCSA's processing of an application for renewal if a motor carrier submits the required application (Form MCSA-1) in accordance with the schedule set forth in part 390, subpart E, of this subchapter.

    36. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 385.421 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 385.421 Under what circumstances will a safety permit be subject to revocation or suspension by FMCSA?

    (a) * * *

    (1) A motor carrier fails to submit a renewal application (Form MCSA-1) in accordance with the schedule set forth in part 390, subpart E, of this subchapter.

    (2) A motor carrier provides any false or misleading information on its application form (Form MCSA-1) or as part of updated information it is providing on Form MCSA-1 (see § 385.405(d)).

    37. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 385.603 to read as follows:
    § 385.603 Application.

    (a) Each applicant applying under this subpart must submit an application that consists of:

    (1) Form MCSA-1, the URS online application; and

    (2) A notification of the means used to designate process agents, either by submission in the application package of Form BOC-3, Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, or a letter stating that the applicant will use a process agent service that will submit the Form BOC-3 electronically.

    (b) The FMCSA will process an application only if it meets the following conditions:

    (1) The application must be completed in English.

    (2) The information supplied must be accurate, complete, and include all required supporting documents and applicable certifications in accordance with the instructions to Form MCSA-1 and Form BOC-3.

    (3) The application must include the filing fee payable to the FMCSA in the amount set forth at 49 CFR 360.3(f)(1).

    (4) The application must be signed by the applicant.

    (c) An applicant must electronically file Form MCSA-1.

    (d) Form MCSA-1 is the URS online application and is available, including complete instructions, at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    38. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 385.607 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
    § 385.607 FMCSA action on the application.

    (e) * * *

    (2) File or have its process agent(s) electronically submit, Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, as required by part 366 of this subchapter.

    39. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 385.609 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    385.609 Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in applicant information.

    (a) * * *

    (2) A motor carrier subject to this subpart must notify FMCSA of any changes or corrections to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1 that occur during the application process or after the motor carrier has been granted new entrant registration. The motor carrier must report the changes or corrections within 30 days of the change. The motor carrier must use Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, to report the new information.

    40. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 385.713 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), and (d) to read as follows:
    § 385.713 Reapplying for new entrant registration.

    (b) If the provisional new entrant registration was revoked because the new entrant failed to receive a Satisfactory rating after undergoing a compliance review, the new entrant must do all of the following:

    (1) Submit an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application;

    (c) If the provisional new entrant registration was revoked because FMCSA found the new entrant failed to submit to a compliance review, the new entrant must do all of the following:

    (1) Submit an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application;

    (d) If the new entrant is a for-hire carrier subject to the registration provisions under 49 U.S.C. 13901 and also has had its operating authority revoked, it must reapply for operating authority as set forth in § 390.201(b) and part 365 of this subchapter.

    PART 387—MINIMUM LEVELS OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOTOR CARRIERS 41. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 387 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13906, 13908, 14701, 31138, and 31139; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    42. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 387.19 to read as follows:
    § 387.19 Electronic filing of surety bonds, trust fund agreements, certificates of insurance and cancellations.

    (a) Insurers of exempt for-hire motor carriers, as defined in § 390.5 of this subchapter, and private motor carriers that transport hazardous materials in interstate commerce that are registered with FMCSA on September 30, 2016, must file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and agreements with FMCSA by December 31, 2016. Insurers of all other exempt for-hire motor carriers, as defined in § 390.5 of this subchapter, and private motor carriers that transport hazardous materials in interstate commerce must file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and agreements with FMCSA at the time of the application for registration. These filings must be made electronically in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth at § 387.323.

    (b) The requirements of this section do not apply to motor carriers excepted under § 387.7(b)(3).

    43. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 387.33 to read as follows:
    § 387.33 Financial responsibility, minimum levels.

    (a) General limits. The minimum levels of financial responsibility referred to in § 387.31 are prescribed as follows:

    SCHEDULE OF LIMITS Public Liability

    For-hire motor carriers of passengers operating in interstate or foreign commerce.

    Vehicle seating capacity Minimum limits (1) Any vehicle with a seating capacity of 16 passengers or more, including the driver 1 $5,000,000 (2) Any vehicle with a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less, including the driver 1 1,500,000 1 Except as provided in § 387.27(b).

    (b) Limits applicable to transit service providers. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the minimum level of financial responsibility for a motor vehicle used to provide transportation services within a transit service area located in more than one State under an agreement with a Federal, State, or local government funded, in whole or in part, with a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310 or 5311, including transportation designed and carried out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, will be the highest level required for any of the States in which it operates. This paragraph applies to transit service providers that operate in more than one State, as well as transit service providers that operate in only one State but interline with other motor carriers that provide interstate transportation within or outside the transit service area. Transit service providers conducting such operations must register as for-hire passenger carriers under part 365, subpart A and part 390, subpart E, of this subchapter, identify the State(s) in which they operate under the applicable grants, and certify on their registration documents that they have in effect financial responsibility levels in an amount equal to or greater than the highest level required by any of the States in which they are operating under a qualifying grant.

    44. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 387.43 to read as follows:
    § 387.43 Electronic filing of surety bonds, trust fund agreements, certificates of insurance and cancellations.

    (a) Insurers of for-hire motor carriers of passengers that are registered with FMCSA on September 30, 2016, must file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and agreements with FMCSA by December 31, 2016. Insurers of all other exempt for-hire motor carriers of passengers must file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and agreements with FMCSA at the time of the application for registration. These filings must be made electronically in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth at § 387.323.

    (b) This section does not apply to motor carriers excepted under § 387.31(b)(3).

    45. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 387.301 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 387.301 Surety bond, certificate of insurance, or other securities.

    (a) Public liability. (1) No for-hire motor carrier or foreign (Mexican) motor private carrier or foreign motor carrier transporting exempt commodities subject to Subtitle IV, part B, chapter 135 of title 49, United States Code, shall engage in interstate or foreign commerce, and no certificate shall be issued to such a carrier or remain in force unless and until there shall have been filed with and accepted by the FMCSA surety bonds, certificates of insurance, proof of qualifications as self-insurer, or other securities or agreements, in the amounts prescribed in § 387.303, conditioned to pay any final judgment recovered against such motor carrier for bodily injuries to or the death of any person resulting from the negligent operation, maintenance or use of motor vehicles in transportation subject to Subtitle IV, part B, chapter 135 of title 49, U.S.C., or for loss of or damage to property of others, or, in the case of motor carriers of property operating freight vehicles described in § 387.303(b)(2), for environmental restoration.

    46. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 387.303 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 387.303 Security for the protection of the public: Minimum limits.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Limits applicable to transit service providers. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the minimum level of financial responsibility for a motor vehicle used to provide transportation services within a transit service area under an agreement with a Federal, State, or local government funded, in whole or in part, with a grant under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310 or 5311, including transportation designed and carried out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, will be the highest level required for any of the States in which it operates. This paragraph applies to transit service providers who operate in a transit service area located in more than one State, as well as transit service providers who operate in only one State but interline with other motor carriers that provide interstate transportation within or outside the transit service area. Transit service providers conducting such operations must register as for-hire passenger carriers under part 365, subpart A and part 390, subpart E of this subchapter, identify the State(s) in which they operate under the applicable grants, and certify on their registration documents that they have in effect financial responsibility levels in an amount equal to or greater than the highest level required by any of the States in which they are operating under a qualifying grant.

    47. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 387.313 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 387.313 Forms and procedures.

    (b) Filing and copies. Certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and notices of cancellation must be filed with the FMCSA at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

    (d) Cancellation notice. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, surety bonds, certificates of insurance, and other securities or agreements shall not be cancelled or withdrawn until 30 days after written notice has been submitted to http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov on the prescribed form (Form BMC-35, Notice of Cancellation Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance under 49 U.S.C. 13906, and BMC-36, Notice of Cancellation Motor Carrier and Broker Surety Bonds, as appropriate) by the insurance company, surety or sureties, motor carrier, broker or other party thereto, as the case may be, which period of thirty (30) days shall commence to run from the date such notice on the prescribed form is filed with FMCSA at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

    48. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 387.323 to read as follows:
    § 387.323 Electronic filing of surety bonds, trust fund agreements, certificates of insurance and cancellations.

    (a) Insurers must electronically file forms BMC 34, BMC 35, BMC 36, BMC 82, BMC 83, BMC 84, BMC 85, BMC 91, and BMC 91X in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

    (b) Each insurer must obtain authorization to file electronically by registering with the FMCSA. An individual account number and password for computer access will be issued to each registered insurer.

    (c) Filings must be transmitted online via the Internet at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

    (d) All registered insurers agree to furnish upon request to the FMCSA a copy of any policy (or policies) and all certificates of insurance, endorsements, surety bonds, trust fund agreements, proof of qualification to self-insure or other insurance filings.

    49. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 387.403 to read as follows:
    § 387.403 General requirements.

    (a) Cargo. A household goods freight forwarder may not operate until it has filed with FMCSA an appropriate surety bond, certificate of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities or agreements, in the amounts prescribed at § 387.405, for loss of or damage to household goods.

    (b) Public liability. A freight forwarder may not perform transfer, collection, or delivery service until it has filed with the FMCSA an appropriate surety bond, certificate of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities or agreements, in the amounts prescribed at § 387.405, conditioned to pay any final judgment recovered against such freight forwarder for bodily injury to or the death of any person, or loss of or damage to property (except cargo) of others, or, in the case of freight vehicles described at § 387.303(b)(2), for environmental restoration, resulting from the negligent operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles operated by or under its control in performing such service.

    (c) Surety bond or trust fund. A freight forwarder must have a surety bond or trust fund in effect. The FMCSA will not issue a freight forwarder license until a surety bond or trust fund for the full limit of liability prescribed in § 387.405 is in effect. The freight forwarder license shall remain valid or effective only as long as a surety bond or trust fund remains in effect and ensures the financial responsibility of the freight forwarder. The requirements applicable to property broker surety bonds and trust funds in § 387.307 shall apply to the surety bond or trust fund required by this paragraph.

    50. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 387.413 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 387.413 Forms and procedures.

    (b) Procedure. Certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and notices of cancellation must be electronically filed with the FMCSA.

    51. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 387.419 to read as follows:
    § 387.419 Electronic filing of surety bonds, certificates of insurance and cancellations.

    Insurers must electronically file certificates of insurance, surety bonds, and other securities and agreements and notices of cancellation in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth at § 387.323.

    PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL 52. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 390 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 13301, 13902, 13908, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31144, 31151, 31502, 31504; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 212, 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767, 1773; sec. 229 Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4114 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743-44); sec. 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388, and 49 CFR 1.81, 1.81a, and 1.87.

    § 390.3 [Amended]
    53. Effective October 21, 2015, amendatory instruction #1 from the correction to § 390.3 published at 78 FR 63100 (October 23, 2013) is withdrawn.
    54. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 390.3 to read as follows:
    § 390.3 General applicability.

    (a) The rules in subchapter B of this chapter are applicable to all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate commerce.

    (b) The rules in part 383 of this chapter, Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and Penalties, are applicable to every person who operates a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in § 383.5 of this subchapter, in interstate or intrastate commerce and to all employers of such persons.

    (c) The rules in part 387 of this chapter, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, are applicable to motor carriers as provided in §§ 387.3 or 387.27 of this chapter.

    (d) Additional requirements. Nothing in subchapter B of this chapter shall be construed to prohibit an employer from requiring and enforcing more stringent requirements relating to safety of operation and employee safety and health.

    (e) Knowledge of and compliance with the regulations. (1) Every employer shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all regulations contained in this subchapter that are applicable to that motor carrier's operations.

    (2) Every driver and employee involved in motor carrier operations shall be instructed regarding, and shall comply with, all applicable regulations contained in this subchapter.

    (3) All motor vehicle equipment and accessories required by this chapter shall be maintained in compliance with all applicable performance and design criteria set forth in this subchapter.

    (f) Exceptions. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the rules in this subchapter do not apply to—

    (1) All school bus operations as defined in § 390.5 except for the provisions of §§ 391.15(e) and (f), 392.80, and 392.82 of this chapter;

    (2) Transportation performed by the Federal government, a State, or any political subdivision of a State, or an agency established under a compact between States that has been approved by the Congress of the United States;

    (3) The occasional transportation of personal property by individuals not for compensation and not in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise;

    (4) The transportation of human corpses or sick and injured persons;

    (5) The operation of fire trucks and rescue vehicles while involved in emergency and related operations;

    (6) The operation of commercial motor vehicles designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver), not for direct compensation, provided the vehicle does not otherwise meet the definition of a commercial motor vehicle, except for the provisions of §§ 391.15(e) and (f), 392.80, and 392.82, and except that motor carriers operating such vehicles are required to comply with §§ 390.15, 390.21(a) and (b)(2), 390.201 and 390.205.

    (7) Either a driver of a commercial motor vehicle used primarily in the transportation of propane winter heating fuel or a driver of a motor vehicle used to respond to a pipeline emergency, if such regulations would prevent the driver from responding to an emergency condition requiring immediate response as defined in § 390.5.

    (g) Motor carriers that transport hazardous materials in intrastate commerce. The rules in the following provisions of this subchapter apply to motor carriers that transport hazardous materials in intrastate commerce and to the motor vehicles that transport hazardous materials in intrastate commerce:

    (1) Part 385, subparts A and E, for carriers subject to the requirements of § 385.403 of this subchapter.

    (2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials Proceedings, of this subchapter.

    (3) Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, to the extent provided in § 387.3 of this subchapter.

    (4) Subpart E of this part, Unified Registration System, and § 390.21, Marking of CMVs, for carriers subject to the requirements of § 385.403 of this subchapter. Intrastate motor carriers operating prior to January 1, 2005, are excepted from § 390.201.

    (h) Intermodal equipment providers. The rules in the following provisions of this subchapter apply to intermodal equipment providers:

    (1) Subpart F, Intermodal Equipment Providers, of Part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures.

    (2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials Proceedings.

    (3) Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General, except § 390.15(b) concerning accident registers.

    (4) Part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation.

    (5) Part 396, Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.

    (i) Brokers. The rules in the following provisions of this subchapter apply to brokers that are required to register with the Agency pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter 139.

    (1) Part 371, Brokers of Property.

    (2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials Proceedings.

    (3) Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, to the extent provided in subpart C of that part.

    (4) Subpart E of this part, Unified Registration System.

    (j) Freight forwarders. The rules in the following provisions of this subchapter apply to freight forwarders that are required to register with the Agency pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter 139.

    (1) Part 386, Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials Proceedings.

    (2) Part 387, Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers, to the extent provided in subpart D of that part.

    (3) Subpart E of this part, Unified Registration System.

    (k) Cargo tank facilities. The rules in subpart E of this part, Unified Registration System, apply to each cargo tank and cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer, assembler, repairer, inspector, tester, and design certifying engineer that is subject to registration requirements under 49 CFR 107.502 and 49 U.S.C. 5108.

    55. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 390.5 by revising the definition of “Exempt motor carrier” to read as follows:
    § 390.5 Definitions.

    Exempt motor carrier means a person engaged in transportation exempt from economic regulation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) under 49 U.S.C. chapter 135 but subject to the safety regulations set forth in this subchapter.

    56. Effective September 30, 2016, revise § 390.19 to read as follows:
    § 390.19 Motor carrier identification reports for certain Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

    (a) Applicability. A Mexico-domiciled motor carrier requesting authority to provide transportation of property or passengers in interstate commerce between Mexico and points in the United States beyond the municipalities and commercial zones along the United States-Mexico international border must file Form MCS-150 with FMCSA as follows:

    (b) Filing schedule. Each motor carrier must file the appropriate form under paragraph (a) of this section at the following times:

    (1) Before it begins operations; and

    (2) Every 24 months, according to the following schedule:

    USDOT No. ending in Must file by last day of 1 January. 2 February. 3 March. 4 April. 5 May. 6 June. 7 July. 8 August. 9 September. 0 October.

    (3) If the next-to-last digit of its USDOT Number is odd, the motor carrier shall file its update in every odd-numbered calendar year. If the next-to-last digit of the USDOT Number is even, the motor carrier shall file its update in every even-numbered calendar year.

    (4) A person that fails to complete biennial updates to the information pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section is subject to the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) or 49 U.S.C. 14901(a), as appropriate, and deactivation of its USDOT Number.

    (c) Availability of forms. The Form MCS-150 and complete instructions are available from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs; from all FMCSA Service Centers and Division offices nationwide; or by calling 1-800-832-5660.

    (d) Where to file. The Form MCS-150 must be filed with the FMCSA Office of Registration and Safety Information. The form may be filed electronically according to the instructions at the Agency's Web site, or it may be sent to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Registration and Safety Information, MC-RS 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    (e) Special instructions. A motor carrier should submit the Form MCS-150 along with its application for operating authority (OP-1(MX)), to the appropriate address referenced on that form, or may submit it electronically or by mail separately to the address mentioned in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (f) Only the legal name or a single trade name of the motor carrier may be used on the Form MCS-150.

    (g)(1) A motor carrier that fails to file the Form MCS-150 or furnishes misleading information or makes false statements upon the form, is subject to the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B).

    (2) A motor carrier that fails to update the Form MCS-150 as required in paragraph (b) will have its USDOT Number deactivated and will be prohibited from conducting transportation.

    (h)(1) Upon receipt and processing of the form described in paragraph (a) of this section, FMCSA will issue the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider an identification number (USDOT Number).

    (2) A Mexico-domiciled motor carrier seeking to provide transportation of property or passengers in interstate commerce between Mexico and points in the United States beyond the municipalities and commercial zones along the United States-Mexico international border must pass the pre-authorization safety audit under § 365.507 of this subchapter. The Agency will not issue a USDOT Number until expiration of the protest period provided in § 365.115 of this chapter or—if a protest is received-after FMCSA denies or rejects the protest.

    (3) The motor carrier must display the USDOT Number on each self-propelled CMV, as defined in § 390.5, along with the additional information required by § 390.21.

    57. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 390.21 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs and intermodal equipment.

    (b) * * *

    (1) The legal name or a single trade name of the motor carrier operating the self-propelled CMV, as listed on the Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, or the motor carrier identification report (Form MCS-150) and submitted in accordance with § 390.201 or § 390.19, as appropriate.

    58. Effective September 30, 2016, amend § 390.40 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers have under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399)?

    (a) Identify its operations to the FMCSA by filing the Form MCSA-1 required by § 390.201.

    59. Effective December 12, 2015 until September 29, 2016, add a new subpart E consisting of § 390.T200 to read as follows: Subpart E—URS Online Application Sec. 390.T200 USDOT Registration. Subpart E—URS Online Application
    § 390.T200 USDOT Registration.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes who must register with FMCSA using the Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, beginning on December 12, 2015 and continuing through September 29, 2016.

    (b) Applicability. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part or 49 CFR 385.305(b)(2), a new applicant private motor carrier or new applicant exempt for-hire motor carrier subject to the requirements of this subchapter must file Form MCSA-1 with FMCSA to identify its operations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for safety oversight. Form MCSA-1 is the URS online application, and both the application and its instructions are available from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (c) Definition. For purposes of this section, a “new applicant” is an entity applying for operating authority registration and a USDOT number who does not at the time of application have an active registration or USDOT, Motor Carrier (MC), Mexican owned or controlled (MX), or Freight Forwarder (FF) number, and who has never had an active registration or USDOT, MC, MX, or FF number.

    (d) Effective period. This section is in effect from December 12, 2015, through September 29, 2016.

    60. Effective September 30, 2016,, revise subpart E, as published August 23, 2013 (78 FR 52654) to read as follows: Subpart E—Unified Registration System Sec. 390.201 USDOT Registration. 390.203 PRISM State registration/biennial updates. 390.205 Special requirements for registration. 390.207 Other governing regulations. 390.209 Pre-authorization safety audit. Subpart E—Unified Registration System
    § 390.201 USDOT Registration.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes who must register with FMCSA under the Unified Registration System, the filing schedule, and general information pertaining to persons subject to the Unified Registration System registration requirements.

    (b) Applicability. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each motor carrier (including a private motor carrier, an exempt for-hire motor carrier, a non-exempt for-hire motor carrier, and a motor carrier of passengers that participates in a through ticketing arrangement with one or more interstate for-hire motor carriers of passengers), intermodal equipment provider, broker and freight forwarder subject to the requirements of this subchapter must file Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, with FMCSA to:

    (i) Identify its operations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for safety oversight, as applicable;

    (ii) Obtain operating authority required under 49 U.S.C. chapter 139, as applicable; and

    (iii) Obtain a hazardous materials safety permit as required under 49 U.S.C. 5109, as applicable.

    (2) A cargo tank and cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer, assembler, repairer, inspector, tester, and design certifying engineer that is subject to registration requirements under 49 CFR 107.502 and 49 U.S.C. 5108 must satisfy those requirements by electronically filing Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, with FMCSA.

    (c) General. (1)(i) A person that fails to file Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section is subject to the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) or 49 U.S.C. 14901(a), as appropriate.

    (ii) A person that fails to complete biennial updates to the information pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section is subject to the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) or 49 U.S.C. 14901(a), as appropriate, and deactivation of its USDOT Number.

    (iii) A person that furnishes misleading information or makes false statements upon Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, is subject to the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B), 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) or 49 U.S.C. 14907, as appropriate.

    (2) Upon receipt and processing of Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, FMCSA will issue the applicant an inactive identification number (USDOT Number). FMCSA will activate the USDOT Number after completion of applicable administrative filings pursuant to § 390.205(a), unless the applicant is subject to § 390.205(b). An applicant may not begin operations nor mark a commercial motor vehicle with the USDOT Number until after the date of the Agency's written notice that the USDOT Number has been activated.

    (3) The motor carrier must display a valid USDOT Number on each self-propelled CMV, as defined in § 390.5, along with the additional information required by § 390.21.

    (d) Filing schedule. Each person listed under § 390.201(b) must electronically file Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, at the following times:

    (1) Before it begins operations; and

    (2) Every 24 months as prescribed in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

    (3)(i) Persons assigned a USDOT Number must file an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, every 24 months, according to the following schedule:

    USDOT No. ending in . . . Must file by last day
  • of . . .
  • 1 January. 2 February. 3 March. 4 April. 5 May. 6 June. 7 July. 8 August. 9 September. 0 October.

    (ii) If the next-to-last digit of its USDOT Number is odd, the person must file its update in every odd-numbered calendar year. If the next-to-last digit of the USDOT Number is even, the person must file its update in every even-numbered calendar year.

    (4) When there is a change in legal name, form of business, or address. A registered entity must notify the Agency of a change in legal name, form of business, or address within 30 days of the change by filing an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, reflecting the revised information. Notification of a change in legal name, form of business, or address does not relieve a registered entity from the requirement to file an updated Form MCSA-1 every 24 months in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

    (5) When there is a transfer of operating authority. (i) Both a person who obtains operating authority through a transfer, as defined in part 365, subpart D of this subchapter (transferee), and the person transferring its operating authority (transferor), must each notify the Agency of the transfer within 30 days of consummation of the transfer by filing:

    (A) An updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, for the transferor, and for the transferee, if the transferee had an existing USDOT Number at the time of the transfer; or

    (B) A new Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, if the transferee did not have an existing USDOT Number at the time of the transfer.

    (C) A copy of the operating authority that is being transferred.

    (ii) Notification of a transfer of operating authority does not relieve a registered entity from the requirement to file an updated Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, every 24 months in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

    (e) Availability of form. Form MCSA-1, the URS online application is available, including complete instructions, from the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (f) Where to file. Persons subject to the registration requirements under this subpart must electronically file Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, on the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/urs.

    (g) Exception. The rules in this subpart do not govern the application by a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier to provide transportation of property or passengers in interstate commerce between Mexico and points in the United States beyond the municipalities and commercial zones along the United States-Mexico international border. The applicable procedures governing transportation by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers are provided in § 390.19.

    § 390.203 PRISM State registration/biennial updates.

    (a) A motor carrier that registers its vehicles in a State that participates in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) program (authorized under section 4004 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107]) alternatively may satisfy the requirements set forth in § 390.201 by electronically filing all the required USDOT registration and biennial update information with the State according to its policies and procedures, provided the State has integrated the USDOT registration/update capability into its vehicle registration program.

    (b) If the State procedures do not allow a motor carrier to file the Form MCSA-1, the URS online application, or to submit updates within the period specified in § 390.201(d)(2), a motor carrier must complete such filings directly with FMCSA.

    (c) A for-hire motor carrier, unless providing transportation exempt from the commercial registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 139, must obtain operating authority as prescribed under § 390.201(b) and part 365 of this subchapter before operating in interstate commerce.

    § 390.205 Special requirements for registration.

    (a)(1) General. A person applying to operate as a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder under this subpart must make the additional filings described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section as a condition for registration under this subpart within 90 days of the date on which the application is filed:

    (2) Evidence of financial responsibility. (i) A person that registers to conduct operations in interstate commerce as a for-hire motor carrier, a broker, or a freight forwarder must file evidence of financial responsibility as required under part 387, subparts C and D of this subchapter.

    (ii) A person that registers to transport hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 171.8 (or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73) in interstate commerce must file evidence of financial responsibility as required under part 387, subpart C of this subchapter.

    (3) Designation of agent for service of process. All motor carriers (both private and for-hire), brokers and freight forwarders required to register under this subpart must designate an agent for service of process (a person upon whom court or Agency process may be served) following the rules in part 366 of this subchapter:

    (b) If an application is subject to a protest period, the Agency will not activate a USDOT Number until expiration of the protest period provided in § 365.115 of this subchapter or—if a protest is received—after FMCSA denies or rejects the protest, as applicable.

    § 390.207 Other governing regulations.

    (a) Motor carriers. (1) A motor carrier granted registration under this part must successfully complete the applicable New Entrant Safety Assurance Program as described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section as a condition for permanent registration:

    (i) A U.S.- or Canada-domiciled motor carrier is subject to the new entrant safety assurance program under part 385, subpart D, of this subchapter.

    (ii) A Mexico-domiciled motor carrier is subject to the safety monitoring program under part 385, subpart B of this subchapter.

    (iii) A Non-North America-domiciled motor carrier is subject to the safety monitoring program under part 385, subpart I of this subchapter.

    (2) Only the legal name or a single trade name of the motor carrier may be used on the Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (b) Brokers, freight forwarders and non-exempt for-hire motor carriers. (1) A broker or freight forwarder must obtain operating authority pursuant to part 365 of this chapter as a condition for obtaining USDOT Registration.

    (2) A motor carrier registering to engage in transportation that is not exempt from economic regulation by FMCSA must obtain operating authority pursuant to part 365 of this subchapter as a condition for obtaining USDOT Registration.

    (c) Intermodal equipment providers. An intermodal equipment provider is subject to the requirements of subpart C of this part.

    (1) Only the legal name or a single trade name of the intermodal equipment provider may be used on the Form MCSA-1, the URS online application.

    (2) The intermodal equipment provider must identify each unit of interchanged intermodal equipment by its assigned USDOT Number.

    (d) Hazardous materials safety permit applicants. A person who applies for a hazardous materials safety permit is subject to the requirements of part 385, subpart E, of this subchapter.

    (e) Cargo tank facilities. A cargo tank facility is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 107, subpart F, 49 CFR part 172, subpart H, and 49 CFR part 180.

    § 390.209 Pre-authorization safety audit.

    A non-North America-domiciled motor carrier seeking to provide transportation of property or passengers in interstate commerce within the United States must pass the pre-authorization safety audit under § 385.607(c) of this subchapter as a condition for receiving registration under this part.

    PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES 61. Effective September 30, 2016, the authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 521, 13902, 13908, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section 112 of Public Law 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by sec. 32509 of Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); and 49 CFR 1.87.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: October 14, 2015. T.F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26625 Filed 10-19-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    80 203 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Proposed Rules SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 123 RIN 3245-AF99 Immediate, Expedited, and Private Disaster Assistance Loan Programs AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking comments on this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding the Immediate Disaster Assistance Program (IDAP), the Expedited Disaster Assistance Program (EDAP), and the Private Disaster Assistance Program (PDAP). Specifically, SBA is seeking comments on the development of proposed regulations for PDAP and EDAP and potential revisions to the existing regulations for IDAP. These programs were authorized by the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2008. The purpose of this ANPRM is to request feedback from potential participants and the public in order to implement these programs in a way that will encourage and enable private sector lenders to participate with SBA to fund loans to disaster survivors.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before December 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AF99, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments; or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Small Business Administration, Attn: Michelle Genovese, Office of Capital Access, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416. All comments will be posted on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, you must submit such information to the U.S. Small Business Administration, Attn: Michelle Genovese, 409 Third Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review your information and determine whether it will make the information public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Genovese, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, telephone number (202) 401-8282 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2008 created three new guaranteed disaster loan programs: The Immediate Disaster Assistance Program, the Expedited Disaster Assistance Program, and the Private Disaster Assistance Program. See Public Law 110-246 (June 18, 2008). Unlike SBA's direct disaster loan program, authorized by Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, under which disaster survivors borrow loan funds directly from SBA, the guaranteed disaster loan programs are designed to allow private sector lenders to participate with SBA in the delivery of disaster loans. The purpose of these programs is to provide disaster survivors with additional avenues for disaster relief in order to help them recover as quickly as possible following a disaster. Details on the features and requirements of each program are described below.

    Immediate Disaster Assistance Program (IDAP)

    The statutory provisions for IDAP may be found in Section 12084 of the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2008, codified at 15 U.S.C. 657n. Under IDAP, SBA guarantees 85% of a loan from participating lenders to small businesses that have suffered physical or economic injury due to a disaster. IDAP loans may be made available for any disaster declared by SBA. The intent of the program is to provide small businesses with immediate access to small dollar loans in the wake of a disaster on an interim basis pending receipt of a direct disaster loan from SBA. Applicants must meet the basic eligibility requirements for a direct disaster loan from SBA and must apply for the SBA direct disaster loan in order to qualify for the IDAP loan. The IDAP loan has a maximum amount of $25,000. SBA does not charge any fees on an IDAP loan. If a direct disaster loan is later approved, proceeds from that loan must be applied first to repay the IDAP loan. However, if the direct disaster loan is declined, or if the direct disaster loan covers only a portion of the IDAP loan, the balance of the IDAP loan must have a minimum term of 120 months from the date of final disbursement of the IDAP loan. By regulation, IDAP lenders must be lenders that participate in the guaranteed loan program authorized by Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act. Additionally, by regulation, IDAP is a delegated authority loan program; non-delegated processing is not available.

    On October 1, 2010, SBA issued an interim final rule (75 FR 60588) that provided regulatory requirements for the program. These regulations include details on borrower eligibility requirements, loan terms, fees, and requirements for participating lenders. See 13 CFR 123.700-123.706. SBA did not receive any comments on the interim final rule. On October 25, 2010, SBA issued a Notice in the Federal Register (75 FR 65534) setting the interest rate on IDAP loans at the prime rate plus one percentage point. Pursuant to 13 CFR 123.703, this rate may be changed by publication in the Federal Register from time to time.

    Expedited Disaster Assistance Program (EDAP)

    The statutory provisions for EDAP may be found in Section 12085 of the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2008. Under EDAP, SBA would guarantee short term loans from participating lenders to small businesses that have suffered damage due to a “catastrophic” disaster. Section 7(b)(9) of the Small Business Act provides that if the President declares a major disaster, the SBA Administrator may declare eligibility for additional disaster assistance if the disaster has resulted in extraordinary levels of casualties or damage or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, or government functions in an area. In order for the SBA Administrator to declare as a catastrophic disaster with eligibility for additional disaster assistance, the disaster must be of such size and scope that SBA's direct disaster loan program is incapable of providing adequate and timely assistance, or a significant number of businesses outside of the disaster area have suffered substantial economic injury as a result of the disaster.

    The maximum amount of an EDAP loan would be $150,000 and SBA would not charge any fees on the loans. The term of an EDAP loan must be limited to 180 days, with extensions on a case-by-case basis. The EDAP loan may be refinanced by a direct disaster loan from SBA or other sources. The maximum interest rate must not exceed 300 basis points over the federal funds rate.

    Private Disaster Assistance Program (PDAP)

    The statutory provisions for PDAP may be found in Section 12083 of the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2008, codified at 15 U.S.C. 636(c). Under PDAP, SBA is authorized to guarantee not more than 85 percent of a loan from participating lenders to small businesses, homeowners or renters that have suffered damage due to a “catastrophic” disaster, as defined above.

    Those eligible for PDAP include homeowners, renters, or small businesses that have suffered physical losses and small businesses that have suffered economic injury as a result of a catastrophic disaster. As required by the statute, any SBA lender participating in the Preferred Lenders Program (PLP) under Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act would be eligible to participate in the PDAP program, and SBA would establish criteria for additional PDAP lenders in regulations. All PDAP lenders would be eligible to make PDAP loans to small businesses, but only PLP lenders would be eligible to make PDAP loans to homeowners or renters.

    The maximum amount of a PDAP loan is $2,000,000. SBA would not charge any fees on the loans. Terms and conditions of PDAP loans would be the same as SBA direct disaster loans.

    II. Comments Requested

    These guaranteed disaster loan programs would provide disaster survivors with additional avenues for disaster relief and give 7(a) participating lenders an opportunity to partner with SBA to assist in the recovery of homeowners and small businesses in their communities after a disaster. SBA requests comments from the public on features necessary to attract lender participation while providing timely and affordable assistance to disaster survivors. Responders are invited to comment on any or all portions of this ANPRM, and may submit additional comments on issues relevant to IDAP, EDAP and PDAP not specifically covered.

    General questions applicable to all three programs include, but are not limited to the following:

    1. Interest rate and fees. SBA understands that disaster loans are inherently riskier loans and that lenders use interest rates and fees in order to offset risk. In developing specific program requirements for IDAP, SBA attempted to strike a balance between allowing lenders to mitigate risk and keeping disaster recovery loans affordable. This included capping borrower application fees at $250, a late payment fee not to exceed 5 percent of the scheduled payment, and limiting the interest rate to the prime rate plus one percentage point. Since then, SBA has received feedback from lenders that the interest rate and fee limitations are too low. Given the general description of each program, what interest rates and fees would be needed to support lender participation in these programs?

    2. Borrower eligibility. For all three guaranteed disaster loan programs, borrowers must meet the same eligibility requirements as borrowers in SBA's direct disaster loan program. These requirements are generally contained in the following regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations: For individuals, §§ 123.100 and 123.101; for businesses with physical damage, §§ 123.200 and 123.201; and for businesses with economic injury, §§ 123.300 and 123.301. For IDAP, the eligibility requirements are set forth in 13 CFR 123.702.

    Only borrowers who sustained physical or economic damages and who are located in an eligible disaster area would be eligible for loans under the guaranteed disaster loan programs. Before making a direct disaster loan for physical damage, SBA performs an on-site verification of the losses resulting from the declared disaster in order to determine the eligible loan amount. For both economic injury and physical damage loans, SBA must also verify the location of the borrower. How would a loss verification process affect lender costs? SBA seeks input from potential lenders regarding their ability to make loans in accordance with these requirements. For example, should SBA allow lenders to rely on borrowers' self-certifications when determining eligibility? Comments may address, among other things, verification of borrower eligibility, borrower rights of appeal, liability for false statements by borrowers, and the level of training/instruction required to participate in the programs.

    3. Duplication of benefits. By statute, SBA direct disaster loans are only available for physical damages or economic injury that is not compensated by other sources in order to avoid a duplication of benefits. If there are no other recoveries, a disaster loan borrower is generally eligible to borrow up to the amount of their disaster losses, as long as the amount is within statutory or regulatory limits and the borrower has repayment ability. If the borrower has received any funds from other sources for the same losses, however, the amount of the disaster loan must be reduced. All three guaranteed disaster loan programs must adhere to this same requirement. Other sources include proceeds from insurance or other indemnifications, grants or other reimbursement (including loans) from government agencies or private organizations, gifts, condemnation awards, and salvage (including any sale or re-use) of items of disaster-damaged property. What concerns, if any, do lenders have regarding their ability to evaluate borrower eligibility in accordance with this requirement?

    4. Catastrophic disasters. PDAP and EDAP are only available in “catastrophic” disasters (as discussed above); IDAP is available in any SBA-declared disaster that SBA designates as IDAP-eligible. Would lenders be interested in making guaranteed PDAP and EDAP loans for disasters other than “catastrophic” disasters? PDAP loans are intended to be long-term guaranteed disaster loans. Are lenders prepared to underwrite these types of loans following a catastrophic disaster, when resources and access to the disaster site may be limited? Would a catastrophic disaster affect the ability of lenders to deliver PDAP and EDAP loans in a timely manner?

    5. Timing. Disasters are, by definition, sudden events that cause severe damage in the affected areas. How quickly would participating lenders be able to make IDAP, EDAP and PDAP loans available to disaster survivors after SBA identifies a disaster as eligible for the IDAP program or the SBA Administrator declares eligibility for additional disaster assistance due to a catastrophic disaster?

    6. Conflict of interest. SBA recognizes that lenders that participate in any of the three guaranteed disaster loan programs may be more likely to use the program(s) to lend to their existing depositors and borrowers. This could be the result of the lender's greater familiarity and experience with the depositor or borrower, which would be particularly useful if business or personal records have been destroyed in the disaster. SBA 7(a) lenders and IDAP lenders are subject to the requirements of 13 CFR 120.140 (What ethical requirements apply to participants?). SBA invites comments on whether there are any additional relationships or transactions that should be restricted in the guaranteed disaster loan programs due to the potential for a conflict of interest on the part of the lender that might put the SBA-guaranteed disaster loan at greater risk than would otherwise be the case.

    IDAP Specific Issues

    7. Term of loan. IDAP loans are designed to be interim loans that will be repaid with the proceeds of a direct disaster loan from SBA. If SBA does not approve an IDAP borrower for a direct disaster loan in the amount of the IDAP loan, the remaining balance of the IDAP loan, by statute, must have a term of at least ten years from the date of final disbursement. Lenders have indicated concern that a ten year repayment period is too long. What is the appropriate repayment term for an IDAP loan if a direct disaster loan sufficient to repay the IDAP loan is not approved by SBA?

    8. Servicing and Liquidation. Unlike servicing and liquidation for regular 7(a) loans, SBA regulations require an IDAP lender to service and liquidate IDAP loans in accordance with the existing practices and procedures that the IDAP lender uses for its non-SBA guaranteed commercial loans. See 13 CFR 123.706(d) and (e). What concerns, if any, do lenders have regarding these requirements?

    EDAP Specific Issues

    9. Guaranty percentage. Unlike for IDAP and PDAP, the statute did not set a guaranty percentage for EDAP. What guaranty percentage would lenders require in order to make EDAP loans?

    10. Refinancing option. Even though the term of an EDAP loan is limited to 180 days (with extensions on a case-by-case basis), the statute gives SBA the authority to refinance EDAP loans with the proceeds of direct disaster loans. Would a refinancing option make EDAP a more attractive loan product?

    11. Use of proceeds. The statute requires SBA to specify whether EDAP proceeds may be used for the following purposes: Paying employees; paying bills and other financial obligations; making repairs; purchasing inventory; restarting or operating a small business concern in the community in which it was conducting operations prior to the applicable major disaster, or to a neighboring area, county, or parish in the disaster area; or covering additional costs until the small business concern is able to obtain funding through insurance claims, Federal assistance programs, or other sources. SBA seeks input on which uses of proceeds, included those listed above or others recommended by commenters, would be appropriate for EDAP loans.

    PDAP Specific Issues

    12. Term of loan. The term of an SBA direct disaster loan is determined based on the borrower's ability to repay. The maximum term is 30 years, and the average loan term is 18.5 years. PDAP loans may have maturities of up to 30 years. Would lenders be willing to make a PDAP loan of up to 30 years? If not, what is the maximum loan term that lenders would consider suitable in the PDAP program.

    13. Amount of loan. The amount of direct disaster loans to homeowners and renters are capped by regulation. Generally, the regulations allow up to $40,000 for personal property, $200,000 for repair or replacement of a primary residence, and $200,000 for refinancing. See 13 CFR 123.105. Are lenders willing to make guaranteed disaster loans to homeowners and renters in these amounts? If not, what is the range of loan amounts that lenders would prefer?

    14. Collateral. SBA does not require collateral for direct disaster loans made in response to major disasters if the loan is $25,000 or less. See 13 CFR 123.11. Are lenders willing to make guaranteed disaster loans of up to $25,000 with no collateral? Additionally, SBA permits liens on direct disaster loans to be in a subordinate position. Are lenders willing to make guaranteed disaster loans if the loan will be secured by a lien in a subordinate position?

    15. Consumer lending. Only PLP lenders are eligible to make PDAP loans to homeowners and renters. PLP lenders are authorized by SBA to make commercial loans, and are not screened in any way for capacity to make and service loans to individuals for residential mortgages or improvements. Do PLP lenders have the expertise to make non-commercial guaranteed disaster loans, or should they be made by other lender units organized to make consumer loans? What training would be required for a PLP or other lender, and what are the concerns about the costs associated with developing the requisite skills? In addition, guaranteed loans to homeowners and renters may require compliance with consumer lending requirements. Do lenders have any concerns about the costs associated with compliance with such requirements? Should SBA's guarantee be conditioned upon a lender's compliance with these consumer lending requirements?

    16. Delegated authority lending. PLP lenders are authorized to make PDAP loans to homeowners and renters, as well as small businesses. Will PLP lenders want all PDAP loans to be made under delegated authority? Other lenders are authorized to make loans to small businesses. Do other lenders want PDAP loans to small businesses to be made under delegated authority? If SBA determines that a PLP lender participating in PDAP knowingly fails to comply with the underwriting standards for PDAP loans, the statute requires SBA to exclude the PLP lender from participating in PDAP or exclude the PLP lender from the 7(a) PLP program for up to five years. Are PLP lenders less likely to participate in PDAP given these compliance requirements?

    17. Sale of the Guarantee. SBA permits the sale of the guarantee on loans made in its other business loan programs. Would the sale of guarantees be a key factor in determining lender participation in PDAP?

    Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26532 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2013-0061] RIN 0960-AH64 Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to amend our regulations by revising our rules regarding the return of evidence at the Appeals Council (AC) level. Our current rules state that the AC will return to the claimant additional evidence it receives when the AC finds the evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge's (ALJ) hearing decision. We are proposing these revisions to give the AC discretion in returning additional evidence that it receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ decision.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we consider your comments, we must receive them by no later than November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2013-0061 so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.

    Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only information you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical information.

    1. Internet: We strongly recommend this method for submitting your comments. Visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Use the Web page's Search function to find docket number SSA-2013-0061. Once you submit your comment, the system will issue you a tracking number to confirm your submission. You will not be able to view your comment immediately because we post each comment manually. It may take up to a week for your comment to be viewable.

    2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966-2830.

    3. Mail: Address your comments to the Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 3100 West High Rise Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.

    Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov or in person, during regular business hours, by arranging with the contact person identified below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maren Weight, Office of Appellate Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605-7100. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The AC will consider new and material evidence submitted with a request for review when the evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ hearing decision.1 When the AC does not find that the additional evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ hearing decision, our current rules state that the AC will return the additional evidence to the claimant.2

    1 20 CFR 404.970(b) and 416.1470(b).

    2 20 CFR 404.976(b) and 416.1476(b).

    When we published it in 1987 (52 FR 4004, February 9, 1987), the rule requiring the AC to return the additional evidence to the claimant made sense because cases pending at the AC level involved paper claim(s) files. Returning evidence provided a public service because claimants often submitted original documentation to the AC. Our primary purpose in returning the original documentation was to allow the claimant to use the information if he or she filed a new application. Because the AC worked with paper claim(s) files, it was more administratively efficient and cost effective to return the evidence by mail directly to the claimant.

    We now use many electronic services that make the practice of returning evidence unnecessary. For example, we now scan most of the medical evidence into the electronic claim(s) file or appointed representatives submit it through our Electronic Records Express system. This technology immediately uploads records into a claimant's electronic folder, making the records available for review in real time. It is neither administratively efficient nor cost effective for us to print out documents that have been submitted to us electronically by a claimant or appointed representative in order to return them to the claimant. Additionally, in the electronic folder, we are able to identify and retain the additional information in a part of the claim(s) file that is not part of the record associated with the current application. This means that all of the evidence submitted on a prior application is immediately available for review if the claimant files a subsequent application.

    Most claimants have representation at and above the hearing level. In approximately 85% of the claims pending with an appointed representative at the hearing level, the representatives have online access to the electronic folder. This means that most representatives can determine in real time whether we received and associated evidence with the claim(s) file. It is impractical and unnecessary to return evidence in these claims because the appointed representative has immediate access to the additional evidence while the claim is pending before the AC.

    The administrative burden of processing and returning evidence also has increased significantly over the last few years. As the number of appeals filed with the AC continues to increase, we have experienced a corresponding increase in the number of claims that involve the submission of additional evidence. Each year, the AC receives additional evidence submissions in approximately one-third of its pending cases, most of which are multi-page submissions.

    In addition to the increased costs associated with printing a significant amount of electronically submitted documents, there are many other administrative and processing time costs to returning evidence. When the AC returns evidence, employees must separate the evidence returned from the other evidence in the electronic claim(s) file, remove the notice of action from the automated printing and mailing process, and manually print, package, and mail the evidence to the claimant. This process is time-consuming, uses our scarce administrative resources with little benefit either to the public or to us, requires action by multiple employees, and delays release of the AC action document. This delay is burdensome and unnecessary in most instances because the claimant already has copies of or access to the information.

    We recognize that there may be some instances in which it would remain appropriate for the AC to return evidence to the claimant, such as when the submitted evidence is an original or a certified copy of a marriage or birth certificate. In evaluating whether returning the evidence is necessary, the AC considers who submitted the information and by what means, whether the claimant is represented, and whether the claimant otherwise has access to the information. Our sub-regulatory instructions will incorporate procedures that explain when the AC will return evidence. We are not changing how the AC considers additional evidence or when the AC will give protective filing based on the receipt of additional evidence.

    Given the change in our operating environment since we first published these rules in 1987, both in terms of our administrative resources and the electronic availability of evidence, we believe it is no longer administratively efficient or cost effective to return additional evidence when the AC determines it does not relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ decision. We expect these proposed changes will benefit the public by reducing the time it takes to release an AC action document.

    Clarity of This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand.

    For example:

    • Would more, but shorter, sections be better?

    • Are the requirements in the proposed rules clearly stated?

    • Have we organized the material to suit your needs?

    • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

    • What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?

    • Do the proposed rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

    • Would a different format make the proposed rules easier to understand, e.g. grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing?

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these proposed rules do not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not review these proposed rules.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    These proposed rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.

    20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Dated: September 14, 2015. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR chapter III parts 404 and 416 as set forth below:

    PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart J—Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    2. In § 404.976, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 404.976 Procedures before Appeals Council on review.

    (b) * * * (1) The Appeals Council will consider all the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 6 months after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits in accordance with § 404.630. If you file a new application within 6 months of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.

    PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions 3. The authority citation for subpart N of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    4. In § 416.1476, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 416.1476 Procedures before Appeals Council on review.

    (b) * * * (1) In reviewing decisions based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 60 days after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits in accordance with § 416.340. If you file a new application within 60 days of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26747 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. FR-5248-P-01] RIN 2529-AA94 Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices Under the Fair Housing Act AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this rule, HUD proposes to amend its fair housing regulations to formalize standards for use in investigations and adjudications involving alleged harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status or disability under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed standards would specify how HUD would evaluate complaints of quid pro quo (“this for that”) harassment and hostile environment harassment and provide for uniform treatment of Fair Housing Act claims raising such allegations in the federal courts. This proposed rule defines “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment harassment,” as prohibited under the Fair Housing Act, and adds illustrations of discriminatory housing practices that constitute such harassment. In addition, the proposed rule clarifies the operation of traditional principles of direct and vicarious liability under the Fair Housing Act.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: December 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are deaf, are hard of hearing, or have speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynn Grosso, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410-2000; telephone number 202-402-5361 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may contact this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    Need for the Regulation. A regulation is needed to formalize the standards for investigations and adjudications under the Fair Housing Act (Fair Housing Act or Act) involving alleged harassment. Both HUD and the courts have long recognized that the Fair Housing Act prohibits harassment in housing and housing-related transactions because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability 1 and familial status, just as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e et se.) prohibits such harassment in employment. However, to date, no standards have been formalized for assessing claims of harassment under the Fair Housing Act. Courts have often applied standards first adopted under Title VII to evaluate claims of harassment under the Fair Housing Act, but such standards are not always the most suitable for assessing claims of harassment in housing discrimination cases given the differences between harassment in the workplace and harassment in or around one's home. Therefore, this rule proposes to formalize standards determined to be appropriate for evaluating claims of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment in the housing context and provides some examples of their application.

    1 This rule uses the term “disability” to refer to what the Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations refer to as a “handicap.” Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998).

    In addition to formalizing standards for assessing claims of harassment under the Fair Housing Act, a regulation is needed to clarify when housing providers and other covered entities or individuals may be held directly or vicariously liable under the Act for illegal harassment or other discriminatory housing practices. HUD proposes to set forth by regulation how these traditional liability standards apply in the housing context because, in HUD's experience, there is significant misunderstanding among public and private housing providers as to the circumstances under which they will be subject to liability under the Fair Housing Act for discriminatory housing practices undertaken by others.

    How the Rule Meets the Need. This proposed rule meets the need described above by formalizing and providing uniform standards for evaluating complaints of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act. The rule does so by defining “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment harassment” as conduct prohibited under the Act, describing the types of conduct that may establish a claim of either type of harassment, and specifying the factors to be considered when evaluating whether particular conduct creates a hostile environment in violation of the Act. Such standards would apply both in administrative adjudications under the Act and in Fair Housing Act cases brought in federal and state courts. This proposed rule also meets the need for regulatory action by adding to HUD's existing Fair Housing Act regulations illustrations of discriminatory housing practices that constitute illegal quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. By establishing consistent standards for evaluating claims of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment, this proposed rule would provide guidance to providers of housing or housing-related services seeking to ensure that their properties or businesses are free of unlawful harassment. The rule also strives to provide clarity to victims of harassment and their representatives as to how to assess potential claims of illegal harassment under the Act. Finally, this proposed regulation describes direct and vicarious liability under the Fair Housing Act, thereby providing both aggrieved persons and housing providers with guidance as to when a party may be held liable for specific discriminatory acts or practices.

    Legal Authority for the Regulation. The legal authority for this regulation is found in the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, section 808(a) of the Act gives the Secretary of HUD the “authority and responsibility for administering this Act.” 42 U.S.C. 3608(a). In addition, section 815 of the Act provides that “[t]he Secretary may make rules (including rules for the collection, maintenance, and analysis of appropriate data) to carry out this title. The Secretary shall give public notice and opportunity for comment with respect to all rules made under this section.” 42 U.S.C. 3614a. HUD also has general rulemaking authority, under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out its functions, powers, and duties. See 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    B. Summary of Major Provisions

    This rule proposes to codify through regulation the principles that quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status (“protected characteristic”) violate one or more provisions of the Fair Housing Act. As noted above, the proposed rule would define “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment” harassment under the Fair Housing Act, add illustrations of prohibited “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment” harassment, and address how the traditional standards for direct and vicarious liability operate in the Fair Housing Act context, including for claims of harassment.

    As proposed to be defined, “quid pro quo harassment” occurs when a person is subjected to an unwelcome request or demand because of the person's protected characteristic and submission to the request or demand is, either explicitly or implicitly, made a condition related to the person's housing. A person's conduct may constitute quid pro quo harassment even where the victim acquiesces or submits to the unwelcome request or demand.

    As proposed to be defined, “hostile environment harassment” occurs when, because of a protected characteristic, a person is subjected to unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive such that it interferes with or deprives the victim of his or her right to use and enjoy the housing or to exercise other rights protected by the Act. The proposed rule further explains that whether a hostile environment has been created requires an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, which includes, but is not limited to, the nature of the conduct; the context in which the conduct occurred; the severity, scope, frequency, duration, and location of the incident(s); and the relationships of the persons involved.

    For purposes of clarity and guidance, the proposed rule would add to HUD's existing Fair Housing Act regulations examples of prohibited quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Act.

    The proposed rule also would describe “direct liability” and “vicarious liability” as applied to all violations under the Act, not solely harassment. The standards for both types of liability incorporated into the proposed rule follow well-established common law tort and agency principles and do not subject respondents or defendants to enhanced liability for violations of the Act. Under such standards, a person is directly liable for his or her own discriminatory housing practices and, in certain circumstances, is directly liable for actions taken by others, including agents, when the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and failed to take prompt corrective action that ends it. The proposed rule would also clarify that direct liability for the actions of non-agents occurs only when a person fails to fulfill a duty to take prompt action to correct and end a non-agent's discriminatory conduct, of which the person knew or should have known.

    In contrast to direct liability for the conduct of another, a person may be vicariously liable for the conduct of his or her agents regardless of whether the person knew of or intended the wrongful conduct or was negligent in preventing the conduct from occurring.2 Vicarious liability occurs when the discriminatory actions of the agent are taken within the scope of the agency relationship, or are committed outside the scope of the agency relationship but the agent was aided in the commission of such acts by the existence of the agency relationship. To clarify the distinction between these two forms of liability—direct and vicarious—without codifying specific common law liability standards, the proposed rule simply adds a provision stating that a person may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of his or her agent. This provision is consistent with the holding of Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285-289 (2003) that traditional principles of agency law apply in fair housing cases.3

    2 An agency relationship is created by contract or by law. Generally, an agency relationship is an arrangement in which one entity or person (the principal) appoints another (the agent) to act on its behalf. However, this proposed rule does not purport to define what constitutes an agency relationship.

    3See also, e.g., Boswell v. Gumbaytay, 2009 WL 1515872, *3 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (discussing vicarious liability of property management companies); Glover v. Jones, 522 F. Supp. 2d 496, 506-08 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (property management company can be vicariously liable for sexual harassment); Williams v. Poretsky Mgmt., 955 F. Supp. 490, 496 (D. Md. 1996) (rental company may be liable for employee's sexual harassment of tenant).

    C. Costs and Benefits

    Because the rule does not add any new forms of liability under the Act, but rather formalizes clear, consistent, nationwide standards for evaluating harassment cases under the Fair Housing Act, the rule adds no additional costs to housing providers and others engaged in housing transactions. Rather, the rule will assist in ensuring compliance with the Act by defining quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment that violates the Act and by specifying traditional tort and agency law standards for assessing direct and vicarious liability, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Articulating clear standards enables entities subject to the Act's prohibitions and persons protected by its terms to understand the types of conduct that constitute actionable quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Act. This should facilitate more effective training to avoid discriminatory harassment in housing and should decrease the need for protracted litigation to resolve disputed claims.

    II. Background

    Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (the Fair Housing Act), prohibits discrimination in the availability and enjoyment of housing and housing-related services, facilities, transactions and brokerage businesses because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and familial status. 42 U.S.C. 3601-19. The Act contains broad prohibitions against discrimination because of a protected characteristic. See 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3605, 3606 and 3617. These provisions prohibit, among other things, discriminatory statements, refusals to rent or sell, denying access to services, setting different terms and conditions, refusing to make reasonable modifications and accommodations, discriminating in residential real estate transactions, and retaliation.

    In 1989, HUD promulgated fair housing regulations at 24 CFR part 100 that address discriminatory conduct in housing generally. The 1989 regulations include examples of discriminatory housing practices that have been interpreted to cover quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile environment harassment generally. Section 100.65(b)(5) identifies, as an example of unlawful conduct, denying or limiting housing-related services or facilities because a person refused to provide sexual favors. Section 100.400(c)(2) offers as an example of illegal conduct “. . . interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.” The 1989 regulations do not, however, define quid pro quo or hostile environment harassment, specify standards for examining such claims, or provide illustrations of other types of quid pro quo or hostile environment harassment prohibited by the Act. Nor do the 1989 regulations discuss liability standards for prohibited harassment or other discriminatory housing practices.

    On November 13, 2000, HUD published a proposed rule entitled “Proposed Fair Housing Act Regulations Amendment Standards Governing Sexual Harassment Cases” (65 FR 67666) seeking comment on standards to be used in evaluating sexual harassment complaints. HUD never issued final regulations pursuant to that proposed rule. Because this proposed rule addresses harassment more broadly, based on any characteristic protected by the Act and not solely because of sex, this proposed rule is not a continuation of the 2000 rulemaking.

    Over time, forms of harassment that violate the civil rights laws have coalesced into two legal doctrines—quid pro quo and hostile environment. Although HUD and the courts have recognized that the Fair Housing Act prohibits harassment because of race or color,4 disability,5 religion,6 national origin,7 familial status,8 and sex,9 the doctrines of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment are not well developed under the Fair Housing Act.

    4See, e.g., Smith v. Mission Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 225 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1298-99 (D. Kan. 2002) (42 U.S.C. 3604(b)); HUD v. Tucker, 2002 WL 31018606, *3-4 (HUD ALJ 2002) (42 U.S.C. 3604(a) and (b)).

    5See, e.g., Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F. 3d 361, 364 (8th Cir. 2003) (42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2)).

    6See, e.g., Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F. 3d 771, 787 (7th Cir. 2009) (42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617).

    7See, e.g., Effendi v. Amber Fields Homeowners Assoc., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35265, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (42 U.S.C. 3604(b) and 3617); Texas v. Crest Asset Mgmt., 85 F. Supp. 722, 736 (S.D. TX 2000) (42 U.S.C. 3604(a) and (b), 3617).

    8See, e.g., Bischoff v. Brittain, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145945, *13-14, *17 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (3604(b)); United States v. M. Westland Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22466, *4 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (Fair Housing Act provision not specified).

    9See, e.g., Quigley v. Winter, 598 F. 3d 938, 946 (8th Cir. 2010) (42 U.S.C. 3617); Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F. 3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 1997) (42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617); Honce v. Vigil, 1 F. 3d 1085, 1088 (10th Cir. 1993) (42 U.S.C. 3604(b)); Shellhammer v. Lewallen, 770 F. 2d 167 (6th Cir. 1985) (sexual harassment under the Fair Housing Act in general).

    To date, when deciding harassment cases, courts have often looked to case law decided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000 et se.) (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.10 But the home and the workplace are significantly different environments such that strict reliance on Title VII case law is not always appropriate. One's home is a place of privacy, security, and refuge (or should be), and harassment that occurs in or around one's home can be far more intrusive, violative, and threatening than harassment in the more public environment of one's work place.11 Moreover, as discussed below, the Supreme Court has historically recognized that individuals have heightened rights within the home for privacy and freedom from unwelcome speech, among other things.12

    10See, e.g., Honce v. Vigil, 1 F. 3d 1085, 1088 (10th Cir. 1993); Shellhammer v. Lewallen, 770 F. 2d 167 (6th Cir. 1985); Glover v. Jones, 522 F. Supp. 2d 496, 503 (W.D.N.Y. 2007); Beliveau v. Caras, 873 F. Supp. 1393, 1396 (C.D. Cal. 1995); see also Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F. 3d 361, 364 (8th Cir. 2003) (applying Title VII concepts to find hostile environment based on disability violated Act). Unlike Title VII, Title VIII also includes disability and familial status among its protected characteristics.

    11See, e.g., Quigley v. Winter, 598 F. 3d 938, 947 (8th Cir. 2010) (emphasizing that defendant's harassing conduct was made “even more egregious” by the fact that it occurred in plaintiff's home, “a place where [she] was entitled to feel safe and secure and need not flee.”); Salisbury v. Hickman, 974 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1292 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“[c]ourts have recognized that harassment in one's own home is particularly egregious and is a factor that must be considered in determining the seriousness of the alleged harassment”); Williams v. Poretsky Management, 955 F. Supp. 490, 498 (D. Md. 1996) (noting sexual harassment in the home more severe than in workplace); Beliveau v. Caras, 873 F. Supp. 1393, 1398 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (describing home as place where one should be safe and not vulnerable to sexual harassment); D. Benjamin Barros, Home As a Legal Concept, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 255, 277-82 (2006) (discussing legal concept of home as source of security, liberty and privacy which justifies favored legal status in many circumstances); Nicole A. Forkenbrock Lindemyer, Article, Sexual Harassment on the Second Shift: The Misfit Application of Title VII Employment Standards to Title VIII Housing Cases, 18 Law & Ineq. 351, 368-80 (2000) (noting that transporting of Title VII workplace standards for sexual harassment into Fair Housing Act cases of residential sexual harassment ignores important distinctions between the two settings); Michelle Adams, Knowing Your Place: Theorizing Sexual Harassment at Home, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 17, 21-28 (1998) (describing destabilizing effect of sexual harassment in the home).

    12 See e.g. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484 (1988) (“[w]e have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes and that the government may protect this freedom”).

    Therefore, this proposed rule would provide regulations to address specifically harassment in one's home and would make clear the differences between quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment in the home and in the work place. While Title VII and Fair Housing Act case law contain many similar concepts, this proposed regulation describes the appropriate analytical framework for harassment claims under the Fair Housing Act.

    The proposed rule addresses only quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment, and not conduct generically referred to as harassment that, for different reasons, may violate section 818 or other provisions of the Act. For example, a racially hostile statement by a housing provider to a tenant could indicate a discriminatory preference in violation of section 804(c) of the Act, or it could evidence intent to deny housing or discriminate in the terms or conditions of housing under sections 804(a) or 804(b), even if the statement does not create a hostile environment or establish a quid pro quo. Section 818, which makes it unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of” rights protected by the Act, or on account of a person having aided others in exercising or enjoying rights protected by the Act, could be violated by conduct that creates a quid pro quo or hostile environment, or by other conduct that constitutes retaliation or another form of coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference because of a protected characteristic.13 Section 818 prohibits quid pro quo or hostile environment harassment, but is not limited to quid pro quo or hostile environment claims. In addition, the same discriminatory conduct could violate more than one provision of the Act.14

    13 A violation of section 818 may be established by the standards for quid pro quo or hostile environment harassment set out in the rule or by the elements of a section 818 violation based on other types of unlawful coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference. The elements of a section 818 violation based on these other types of unlawful conduct mirror its language: (i) Plaintiff or complainant exercised or enjoyed a right guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. 3603-3606; (2) defendant's or respondent's conduct constituted coercion, intimidation, a threat, or interference; and (3) a causal connection exists between the exercise or enjoyment of a right and defendant's or respondent's conduct. See, e.g., Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F. 3d 771, 783 (7th Cir. 2009); Hood v. Midwest Sav. Bank, 95 Fed. Appx. 768, 779 (6th Cir. 2004); Nguyen v. Patek, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147295, *7-8 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss where Vietnamese-American plaintiffs alleged white neighbors interfered with enjoyment of their housing rights by subjecting them to pattern of race and national origin harassment); Wells v. Rhodes, 928 F. Supp. 2d 920, 933 (S.D. OH. 2013) (granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because a reasonable jury could conclude that “burning a cross on Plaintiffs' front lawn, with `KKK will make you pay' and the N-word written on it, is certainly interference (or perhaps more accurately a threat or intimidation) within the broad meaning of § 3617”); Ohana v. 180 Prospect Place Realty, 996 F. Supp. 238, 243 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying defendants' motion to dismiss where defendants interfered with plaintiffs' quietude by making racial and anti-Jewish slurs and epithets, threats of bodily harm, and noise disturbances). See also Robert G. Schwemm, Neighbor-on-Neighbor Harassment: Does the Fair Housing Act Make a Federal Case Out of It?, 61 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 865 (2011).

    14See 24 CFR 100.50(a).

    In sum, this proposed rule would provide standards that are uniformly applicable to claims of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act, regardless of the section of the Act that is alleged to have been violated. These standards would be useful to victims of harassment as well as housing providers seeking to ensure their properties are free of illegal harassment. The proposed rule also provides HUD investigators and administrative law judges, other government agencies, and courts with the appropriate standards to be applied to claims of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment in the housing context.

    III. This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would amend 24 CFR part 100 to establish a new subpart H, entitled “Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment,” which would define “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment harassment” under the Fair Housing Act. This proposed rule would also add new illustrations of prohibited harassment throughout part 100 by amending existing §§ 100.60, 100.65, 100.80, 100.90, 100.120, 100.130, and 100.135, and a new § 100.7, addressing how the traditional standards for direct and vicarious liability operate in the Fair Housing Act context, including for claims of harassment.

    A. Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment

    The proposed rule establishes within proposed Subpart H a new § 100.600, entitled “Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment,” which addresses what conduct constitutes these types of harassment under the Fair Housing Act. This section states that quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status violate one or more of the prohibitions against discrimination found in sections 804, 805, 806 and 818 of the Fair Housing Act.

    As with other discriminatory housing practices prohibited by the Act, any person who claims to have been injured or believes such person will be injured by prohibited harassment is an aggrieved person under the Act, even if that person is not directly targeted by the harassment.15 For example, children may be aggrieved by harassment directed at their parents because the children may lose their housing. Similarly, a person is aggrieved if that person is denied or delayed in receiving a housing-related opportunity or benefit because another received the benefit. If, for example, a property manager awards an apartment to an applicant in exchange for sexual favors, the other applicants who were denied the apartment are aggrieved persons.16

    15 42 U.S.C. 3602(i); see also 24 CFR 100.20.

    16See, e.g., Fair Hous. Council v. Penasquitos Casablanca Owner's Ass'n, 381 Fed. Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that minor children need not be the targets of sexual harassment directed at their mother but need only suffer “actual injury as a result of the defendant's conduct” to establish standing) (quoting Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 103 n.9 (1979)); Shellhammer v. Lewallen, 770 F. 2d 167 (6th Cir. 1985) (upholding a finding of discrimination in favor of plaintiffs, wife and husband, who had been evicted after wife rebuffed defendant landlord's sexual advances); Grieger v. Sheets, 689 F. Supp. 835 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (upholding both hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment claims made by plaintiffs, wife and husband, where: landlord made sexual advances to the wife, landlord threatened to shoot the husband after he confronted the landlord, and landlord refused to make promised repairs after wife rebuffed landlord's advances). Cf. 29 CFR 1604.11(g) (EEOC regulation providing that “[w]here employment opportunities or benefits are granted because of an individual's submission to the employer's sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, the employer may be held liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other persons who were qualified for but denied that employment opportunity or benefit.”).

    1. Quid Pro Quo Harassment

    Paragraph (a)(1) of new § 100.600 would address quid pro quo harassment under the Fair Housing Act. Paragraph (a)(1) provides that quid pro quo harassment occurs when a person is subjected to an unwelcome request or demand because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status, and submission to the request or demand is, either explicitly or implicitly, made a condition related to his or her housing.

    Claims of quid pro quo harassment may be established on the basis of protected characteristics other than sex. The theory, however, has most typically been associated with sex. For example, quid pro quo harassment occurs when a housing provider conditions a tenant's continued housing on the tenant's submission to unwelcome requests for sexual favors.17 Similarly, conditioning the receipt of privileges or services in connection with housing or conditioning access to residential real estate-related transactions on acquiescence to unwelcome requests or demands for sexual favors is illegal quid pro quo harassment.18 A person's conduct may constitute quid pro quo harassment even where the victim acquiesces or submits to the unwelcome request or demand. For example, if a housing manager demands sexual favors under threat of eviction and the resident acquiesces in order to keep her housing, quid pro quo harassment has occurred.19 Conversely, a person's conduct may constitute quid pro quo harassment where the person takes or threatens to take an action that adversely affects the victim because the victim has refused to acquiesce or submit to the unwelcome demand.20

    17See, e.g., Woods v. Foster, 884 F. Supp. 1169, 1175 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (shelter resident submitted to manager's demands for sex in exchange for retaining her housing); cf United States v. Koch, 352 F. Supp. 2d 970, 981-83 (D. Neb. 2004) (in hostile environment case, some tenants submitted to sexual demands of landlord in order to preserve their housing).

    18See, e.g., Boswell v. Gumbaytay, 2009 WL 1515872, *5 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (conditioning rent amount and repairs to the dwelling on whether sexual favors are granted); Grieger v. Sheets, 689 F. Supp. 835 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (conditioning tenancy and repairs to dwelling on sexual favors from tenant).

    19See, e.g., cases cited at n. 17, supra.

    20See, e.g., Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F. 3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 1997) (landlord evicted tenant after she rebuffed his advances and filed a housing discrimination claim against him); Miles v. Gilray, 2012 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 90941 at *2, *7 (W.D. N.Y. 2012) (mobile home park operator served termination notice when plaintiffs rebuffed sexual advances); HUD v. Kogut, 1995 HUD ALJ LEXIS 52. *39 (HUD ALJ 1995) (property manager evicted tenant after she rebuffed his sexual advances).

    2. Hostile Environment Harassment

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed new § 100.600 addresses hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act. Paragraph (a)(2) provides that hostile environment harassment occurs when unwelcome conduct because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status, is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create an environment that unreasonably interferes with the availability, sale, rental, use, or enjoyment of a dwelling, the provision or enjoyment of facilities or services in connection therewith, or the availability or terms of residential real estate-related transactions.21 It is well recognized that claims of hostile environment harassment should be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the aggrieved person's position.22

    21See, e.g., Quigley v. Winter, 598 F. 3d 938, 946 (8th Cir. 2010) (sex); Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F. 3d 361, 364 (8th Cir. 2003) (disability); Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F. 3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 1997) (sex); Honce v. Vigil, 1 F. 3d 1085, 1088 (10th Cir. 1993) (sex); Smith v. Mission Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 225 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1298-99 (D. Kan. 2002) (race).

    22See, e.g., Williams v. Poretsky Mgmt., 955 F. Supp. 490, 497 (D. Md. 1996) (in hostile environment sexual harassment case under the Act, noting that “[w]hether a reasonable person would have been detrimentally affected by the harassment to which [plaintiff was] subjected is quintessentially a question of fact.”) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted); Beliveau v. Caras, 873 F. Supp. 1393, 1397-98 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (adopting “reasonable woman standard” in hostile environment sexual harassment case under the Act and observing that “women remain disproportionately vulnerable to rape and sexual assault, which can and often does shape women's interpretations of words or behavior of a sexual nature, particularly if unsolicited or occurring in an inappropriate context.”). See also Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68-9 (2006) (using “reasonable employee” standard in Title VII case); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993) (applying an objective and subjective reasonable person standard).

    Establishing hostile environment harassment requires a showing that: A person was subjected to unwelcome spoken, written or physical conduct; the conduct was because of a protected characteristic; and the conduct was, considering the totality of circumstances, sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably interfered with or deprived the victim of his or her right to use and enjoy the housing or to exercise other rights protected by the Act.

    a. Totality of the Circumstances

    Proposed § 100.600(a)(2)(i), entitled “Totality of the circumstances,” specifies that whether hostile environment harassment exists depends upon the totality of the circumstances. Proposed § 100.600(a)(2)(i)(A) provides that the factors to be considered in determining whether a hostile environment has been created include, but are not limited to, the nature of the conduct; the context in which the conduct occurred; the severity, scope, frequency, duration, and location of the incident(s); and the relationships of the persons involved.23 Assessment of the context in which the conduct occurred involves consideration of such factors as whether the harassment was in or around the home; whether the harassment was accomplished by use of a special privilege of the perpetrator (e.g., using a passkey or gaining entry by reason of the landlord-tenant relationship); whether a threat was involved; and whether the conduct was likely to or did cause anxiety, fear or hardship.

    23See, e.g., Hall v. Meadowood, 7 Fed. Appx. 687, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing circumstances to be considered in hostile environment case as including frequency of offensive conduct; severity; whether it involves threats, humiliation or “mere offensive utterance;” and whether it unreasonably interferes living conditions); see also Harris, 510 U.S. at 23 (factors to consider when determining whether a work environment is hostile under Title VII may include “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance”).

    In considering whether the totality of the circumstances evidences hostile environment harassment, it is particularly important to consider the place where the conduct occurred. Often in a fair housing case the harassment will occur in or around the home, which should be a haven of privacy, safety and security. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that heightened rights exist within the home for, among other things, privacy and freedom from intrusive speech.24 For example, in a case decided under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court described the sanctity of the home as follows:

    24See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 625 (1995) (describing home as place to “avoid intrusions”); O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 724 (1987) (holding reasonableness standard is proper for workplace searches because employee's expectation of privacy is much less than when they are at home); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21-22 (1971) (“[T]his court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue . . . [Regarding the] claim to a recognizable privacy interest . . ., surely there is nothing like the interest in being free from unwanted expression in the confines of one's own home.”).

    Preserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value. Our decisions reflect no lack of solicitude for the right of an individual “to be let alone” in the privacy of the home, “sometimes the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick.” The State's interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.25

    25Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 471 (1980) (quoting Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125 (1969) (Black, J., concurring))

    When harassment occurs in the workplace, the victim can escape to his home. In contrast, when harassment occurs in and around the home, the victim has little opportunity to escape it short of moving or staying away from the home—neither of which should be required. As one court noted in a sexual harassment case under the Act, the home is “a place where [one is] entitled to feel safe and secure and need not flee.” 26 Thus, the nature and frequency of harassing conduct needed to establish employment discrimination under Title VII does not necessarily transfer to cases under the Fair Housing Act. Instead, the sanctity of the home must be considered in making the totality of the circumstances assessment. Thus, while Title VII and the Fair Housing Act regulations proposed by this rule use similar terms, such as “totality of the circumstances” and “sufficiently severe or pervasive,” the same or similar conduct may result in a violation of the Fair Housing Act even though it may not violate Title VII.

    26Quigley v. Winter, 598 F. 3d 938, 947 (8th Cir. 2010) (sexual harassment violation of Act).

    Proposed § 100.600(a)(2)(i)(B) provides that the absence of psychological or physical harm is not dispositive in determining whether hostile environment harassment has occurred. Evidence of such harm is but one of many factors to be considered in the totality of circumstances. However, the severity of psychological or physical harm may be considered in determining the proper amount of any damages to which an aggrieved person may be entitled.27

    27See, e.g., Harris, 510 U.S. at 23 (noting that effect on victim's psychological well-being is relevant to determining whether she “found the environment abusive” but absence of psychological harm is not dispositive in determining whether harassment occurred).

    3. Type of Conduct

    Prohibited quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment require unwelcome conduct, and proposed § 100.600(b) explains that the unwelcome conduct can be written, verbal, or other conduct and does not require physical contact. The unwelcome conduct may come in many forms, such as using threatening imagery (e.g., cross burning or swastika); damaging property; physical assault; threatening physical harm to an individual, family member, assistance animal or pet; or impeding the physical access of a person with a mobility impairment. The unwelcome conduct could be spoken or written, such as requests for sexual favors. It may include gestures, signs, and images directed at the aggrieved persons. It may include the use of racial, religious or ethnic epithets, derogatory statements or expressions of a sexual nature, taunting or teasing related to a person's disability, or threatening statements. In addition, the unwelcome conduct may be communicated to the targeted individual in direct and indirect ways. For example, the unwelcome conduct may involve the use of email, text messages, or social media.

    As is the case with other prohibited conduct under the Act, an individual violates the Act so long as the quid pro quo or hostile environment harassment is because of a protected characteristic, even if he or she shares the same protected characteristic as the targeted person. For example, in sexual harassment claims, an individual violates the Act by harassing a person of the same sex or by harassing both men and women, so long as the unwelcome conduct is because of sex. Similarly, a person violates the Act by harassing a person of the same race or color if the unwelcome conduct is because of race or color.

    With respect to sexual harassment, harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire in order to support a finding of illegal discrimination. Sexually harassing conduct must occur “because of sex,” which can be shown by, for example, conduct motivated by hostility toward persons of one sex; conduct that occurs because a person acts in a manner that conflicts with gender-based stereotypes of how persons of a particular sex should act; or conduct motivated by sexual desire or control.

    4. Number of Incidents

    Proposed § 100.600(c) provides that a single incident because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability can constitute an illegal quid pro quo, or, if sufficiently severe, a hostile environment in violation of the Act.28

    28See, e,g., Quigley v. Winter, 598 F. 3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that a single instance of quid pro quo violated the Act where landlord implied that the return of a rent deposit depended on seeing plaintiff's nude body or receiving a sexual favor); Doe v. Ore Duckworth, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113287, *12 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2013) (holding that touching of an intimate area of a plaintiff's body is conduct that can be sufficiently severe to create a hostile housing environment in violation of the Act, “even if it is an isolated incident”); Beliveau v. Caras, 873 F. Supp. 1393, 1398 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (stating that a single incident of sexual touching that would constitute sexual battery under state law, “would support a [hostile environment] sexual harassment claim under the federal Fair Housing Act.”); see also cases cited at note 11, supra, and accompanying text (explaining that harassment that occurs in or around one's home is especially intrusive, violative, and threatening); cf. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (U.S. 1998) (noting that “isolated incidents [of harassment] (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment’ ” constituting a hostile environment) (citations omitted;

    B. Illustrations—Subparts B, C, and F

    The proposed rule would add illustrations of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment to existing §§ 100.60, 100.65, 100.80, 100.90, 100.120, 100.130, and 100.135.

    In § 100.60, entitled “Unlawful refusal to sell or rent or to negotiate for the sale or rental,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraphs as illustrations of prohibited quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act: Conditioning the availability of a dwelling, including the price, qualification criteria, or standards or procedures for securing a dwelling, on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability; subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability that causes the person to vacate a dwelling or abandon efforts to secure the dwelling. Conditioning the “availability” of a dwelling means the initial or continued availability of a dwelling, or both.

    In § 100.65, entitled “Discrimination in terms, conditions, and privileges and in services and facilities,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraph as an illustration of prohibited quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act: Conditioning the terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the sale or rental of a dwelling or denying or limiting the services or facilities in connection with a dwelling on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability; subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that has the effect of imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the sale or rental of a dwelling or denying or limiting service or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling.

    In § 100.80, entitled “Discriminatory representation on the availability of dwellings,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraph as an illustration of a prohibited quid pro quo harassment under the Fair Housing Act: Representing to an applicant that a unit is unavailable because of the applicant's response to a request for a sexual favor or other harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

    In § 100.90, entitled “Discrimination in the provision of brokerage services,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraphs as illustrations of prohibited quid pro quo and hostile environment under the Fair Housing Act: Conditioning access to brokerage services on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability; subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability that has the effect of discouraging or denying access to brokerage services.

    In § 100.120, entitled “Discrimination in the making of loans and in the provision of other financial services,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraphs as illustrations of prohibited quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act: Conditioning the availability of a loan or other financial assistance that is or will be secured by a dwelling on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability; subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability that affects the availability of a loan or other financial assistance that is or will be secured by a dwelling.

    In § 100.130, entitled “Discrimination in the terms and conditions for making available loans or other financial assistance,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraphs as illustrations of prohibited quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act: Conditioning the aspect of a loan or other financial assistance to be provided with respect to a dwelling, or the terms or conditions thereof, on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability; subjecting a person to harassment because race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability that has the effect of imposing different terms or conditions for the availability of such loans or other financial assistance.

    In § 100.135, entitled “Unlawful practices in the selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property,” the proposed rule would add the following paragraph regarding prohibited quid pro quo harassment under the Fair Housing Act: Conditioning the terms of an appraisal of residential real property in connection with the sale, rental, or financing of a dwelling on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

    The proposed rule would not add an additional example of quid pro quo or hostile environment harassment to § 100.400, entitled “Prohibited Interference, Coercion or Intimidation,” because existing § 100.400(c)(2) already encompasses both in identifying as an example of conduct made unlawful by section 818: “Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.”

    C. Establishing Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices

    This proposed rule would add new § 100.7 to subpart A (General), entitled “Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices.” This proposed rule is intended to clarify standards for liability under this part, based on traditional principles of tort liability, and not to impose any new legal obligations or create or define new agency relationships or duties of care.29

    29See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. at 282, 287 (applying “traditional agency principles” and “ordinary background principles” of tort liability to Fair Housing Act claim); see also, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Agency section 7.05 (“A principal . . . is subject to liability for harm to a third party caused by [an] agent's conduct if the harm was caused by the principal's negligence in selecting, training, supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent.”).

    1. Direct Liability

    Proposed paragraph (a) of § 100.7 identifies direct liability under the Act. New § 100.7(a)(1)(i) proposes that a person is liable for his or her own discriminatory housing practices. New §§ 100.7(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii) describe direct liability grounded in negligence. New § 100.7(a)(1)(ii) proposes that a person is directly liable for failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by that person's employee or agent where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct. New § 100.7(a)(1)(iii) proposes that a person is directly liable for failing to fulfill a duty to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party (i.e., a non-agent) when the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct. New § 100.7(a)(1)(iii) also proposes that a housing provider's duty to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party can derive from an obligation to the aggrieved person created by contract or lease (including bylaws or other rules of a homeowners association, condominium or cooperative), or by federal, state or local law.30

    30See, e.g., Reeves v. Carrollsburg Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21762, *26 (D.D.C. 1997) (denying association's motion for summary judgment because association knew or should have known of resident's harassment of plaintiff and had a duty to enforce its bylaws, including sanctions and litigation, yet failed to do so); see also infra note 32 and accompanying text).

    With respect to a person's direct liability for the actions of an agent, § 100.7(a)(1)(ii) recognizes that a principal who knows or should have known that his or her agent has engaged in or is engaging in unlawful conduct and allows it to continue is complicit in or has ratified the discrimination.31 With respect to direct liability for the conduct of a non-agent, § 100.7(a)(1)(iii) codifies the traditional principle of liability, and HUD's longstanding position, that a person is directly liable under the Act for harassment perpetrated by non-agents if the person knew or should have known of the harassment, had a duty to take prompt action to correct and end the harassment, and failed to do so or took action that he or she knew or should have known would be unsuccessful in ending the harassment.32 This liability arises when, for example, a person, including a management company, homeowner's association, condominium association, or cooperative, knew or should have known that a resident was harassing another resident, and yet did not take prompt action to correct and end it, while having a duty to do so. As recognized by § 100.7(a)(1)(iii), this duty may be created, for example, by a lease or other contract under which a housing provider is legally obligated to exercise reasonable care to protect residents' safety and curtail unlawful conduct in areas under the housing provider's control, or by federal, state or local laws requiring the same.

    31 See, e.g., United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F. 2d 916, 930 (7th Cir. 1992) (owner liable for agent's racially discriminatory rental practices of which he knew and failed to stop); Heights Community Congress v. Hilltop Realty, Inc., 774 F. 2d 135, 141, (6th Cir. 1985) (realty firm that knew of fair housing violations by its agents and failed to take corrective action were liable); Richards v. Bono, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43585, *32 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (wife/co-owner who knew of husband's sexual harassment yet failed to stop it liable for that violation); United States v. Veal, 365 F. Supp 2d 1034, 1041 (W.D. Mo. 2004) (same).

    32See, e.g., Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F. 3d 361, 364 (8th Cir. 2003) (owner may be liable for acts of tenants and management's children after failing to respond to plaintiff's complaints of harassment); Fahnbulleh v. GFZ Realty, LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 360, 364-65 (D. Md. 2011) (denying landlord's motion to dismiss because the Act imposes no categorical rule against landlord liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment); Wilstein v. San Tropai Condo. Master Ass'n, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7031, *28-33 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 1999) (rejecting condo association's argument that it had no duty to stop harassment of plaintiff by other residents and holding that association could be liable where evidence indicated that association knew of the harassment and bylaws authorized the association to regulate such conduct); Reeves v. Carrollsburg Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21762, * 26 (D.D.C. 1997) (condo association that knew of harassment by resident but failed to take corrective actions may violate Act); see also. Bradley v. Carydale Enterprises, 707 F. Supp. 217 (E.D. Va. 1989) (finding that owners and managers' failure to address one tenant's racial harassment of a neighboring tenant states a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982); Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., 750 F. 3d 413, 422-23 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that “an employer is liable under Title VII for third parties creating a hostile work environment if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end [it].”) (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F. 3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An employer may be held liable for the actionable third-party harassment of its employees where it ratifies or condones the conduct by failing to investigate and remedy it after learning of it.”).

    A principal “should have known” about the illegal discrimination of the principal's agent when the principal is found to have had knowledge from which a reasonable person would conclude that the agent was discriminating.33 For example, if a housing provider's male maintenance worker enters female tenants' units without notice using a passkey, and enters their bedrooms or bathrooms while they are changing or showering and exposes himself, and the tenants complain about this conduct to the manager, the manager has reason to know that unlawful discrimination may be occurring. If the manager conveys this information to the owner, and neither the owner nor the manager takes any corrective action, they are both liable for violating the Act. In that case, the principal is liable as if the principal had committed the illegal act.34

    33 The “knew or should have known” concept of liability is well-established in civil rights and tort law. As the Supreme Court has recognized, fair housing actions are essentially tort actions. See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285 (2003) (citing Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 195-96 (1974)); see also Fahnbulleh v. GZF Realty, LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 360, 363 (D. Md. 2011) (quoting Williams v. Poretsky Mgmt., 955 F. Supp. 490, 496 (D. Md. 1996)) (“[c]onduct is imputable to a landlord, if the landlord knew or should have known of the harassment and took no effectual action to correct the situation.”).

    34See, e.g., Fahnbulleh, 795 F. Supp. 2d at 360, 363; Williams v. Poretsky Mgmt., 955 F. Supp. 490, 496 (D. Md. 1996).

    Similarly, an apartment owner “should have known” of tenant harassment by another tenant when the owner had knowledge from which a reasonable person would conclude that the harassment was occurring. It is important to note, however, that not every quarrel among neighbors amounts to a violation of the Fair Housing Act.35

    35See, e.g., Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F. 3d 771, 783 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n, 388 F. 3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that interference under § 818 “is more than a `quarrel among neighbors' ”); Sporn v. Ocean Colony Condominium Assn, 173 F. Supp. 2d 244, 251-52 (D.N.J. 2001) (noting that section 818 “does not [ ] impose a code of civility” on neighbors); United States v. Weisz, 914 F. Supp. 1050, 1054-55 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (holding that allegations that Jewish neighbor harassed complainants because of their religion were “nothing more than a series of skirmishes in an unfortunate war between neighbors”). But see Ohana v. 180 Prospect Place, 996 F. Supp. 238, 243 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (neighbors who intentionally intrude upon quietude of another's home may violate Act).

    Proposed § 100.7(a)(2) provides that corrective actions must be effective in ending the discrimination, but may not injure the aggrieved persons.36 For example, corrective actions appropriate for a housing provider to utilize to stop tenant-on-tenant harassment might include verbal and written warnings; enforcing lease provisions to move, evict, or otherwise sanction tenants who harass or permit guests to harass; issuing no-trespass orders or reporting conduct to the police; and establishing an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedures, depending on the nature, frequency, and severity of the harassment, and the size and authority of the provider. When the perpetrator is an employee of the housing provider, corrective actions might include training, warnings, or reprimands; termination or other sanctions; and reports to the police. The housing provider should follow up with the victim of the harassment after the corrective action is taken to ensure that it was effective. If the housing provider knows or should have known that the corrective action was ineffective, the provider has a duty to take additional corrective actions.

    36See, e.g., Miller v. Towne Oaks East Apartments, 797 F. Supp. 557, 562 (E.D. Tex.1992) (finding landlord liable for violating Act by evicting both harasser and victim of harassment instead of only harasser).

    2. Vicarious Liability

    Proposed paragraph (b) of § 100.7 provides that a person is vicariously liable for the discriminatory housing practices of his or her agents or employees, as specified by agency law. This provision is consistent with the holding of Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285-289 (2003) that traditional principles of agency law apply in fair housing cases. Under well-established principles of agency law, a principal is vicariously liable for the actions of his or her agents taken within the scope of their relationship or employment, as well as for actions committed outside the scope of the relationship or employment when the agent is aided in the commission of such acts by the existence of the agency relationship.37 Unlike direct liability, someone may be vicariously liable for the acts of an agent regardless of whether the person knew of or intended the wrongful conduct or was negligent in preventing it from occurring. In determining whether a principal is vicariously liable, an agent's responsibilities, duties, and functions must be carefully examined to determine whether an agency relationship exists, and also whether the conduct was within the scope of the agency relationship or aided by the existence of the agency relationship.38

    37See Meyer, 537 U.S. at 285 (“[T]raditional vicarious liability rules . . . make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment.”); Glover v. Jones, 522 F. Supp. 2d 496, 507 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that “a property owner may be vicariously liable under the Fair Housing Act for the actions of an employee even when they are outside the scope of employment . . . if the employee was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation.”) (quoting Mack v. Otis Elevator Co., 326 F. 3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Boswell v. GumBayTay, No. 2:07-CV-135-WKW[WO], 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45954, *17 (M.D. Ala. June 1, 2009) (holding that vicarious liability attached to property owner where property manager's “position essentially gave him unfettered access to communicate with and personally visit [the plaintiff]” and he “used his power as property manager as a vehicle through which to perpetrate his unlawful conduct by refusing repairs, raising the rent, and attempting to evict [the plaintiff] as a consequence for [her] refusal to provide sexual favors.”); Glover at 522 F. Supp. 2d at 507 (rejecting defendant property owner's motion for summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability where evidence showed that property manager used his “position as the de facto landlord to perpetrate FHA [harassment] violations . . . giving] him the opportunity to visit the apartment when he wanted, and enabl[ing] him to control Plaintiff's rent”); Richards v. Bono, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43585, *30 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (holding that wife/co-owner of property could be vicariously liable for husband's harassment where husband acted as her agent and used his position as owner, property manager, and maintenance supervisor to subject the plaintiff to sexual harassment by using a key to enter plaintiff's apartment and threatening plaintiff with eviction).

    38 See, e.g, United States v. Hylton, 590 Fed. Appx. 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2014); Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F. 3d 518, 522 (2d Cir. 2006); Alexander v. Riga, 208 F. 3d 419, 430-33 (3d Cir. 2000); Jankowski Lee & Assocs. v. Cisneros, 91 F. 3d 891, 896-97 (7th Cir. 1996); Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F. 3d 372, 388 (2d Cir. 1994); City of Chicago v. Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, 982 F. 2d 1086, 1096-98 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F. 2d 916, 930 (7th Cir. 1992); Walker v. Crigler, 976 F. 2d 900, 903-05 (4th Cir. 1992); Hamilton v. Svatik, 779 F. 2d 383, 388 (7th Cir. 1985); Marr v. Rife, 503F. 2d 735, 741 (6th Cir. 1974); United States v. Prach, 2005 WL 1950018 *4 (E.D. Wa. 2005); Richards v. Bono, 2005 WL 1065141 *7 (M.D. Fla. 2005); United States v. Veal, 365 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1041 (W.D. Mo. 2004); United States v. Habersham Props., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1366,1375 (N.D. Ga. 2003); United States v. Garden Homes Mgmt., 156 F. Supp. 2d 413, 424-25 (D.N.J. 2001); Beliveau v. Caras, 873 F. Supp. 1393, 1400-01 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

    As provided in new § 100.600(a)(2)(ii), the proposed rule would not extend to the Fair Housing Act the judicially-created Title VII affirmative defense to an employer's vicarious liability for hostile environment harassment committed by a supervisory employee. The Title VII affirmative defense permits an employer to avoid vicarious liability for such harassment by showing that (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly the supervisor's harassing behavior, including implementing a policy to prevent and correct instances of sexual harassment and procedures for training and complaint filing; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer to otherwise avoid harm.39 The Title VII affirmative defense applies only where the supervisor's hostile environment harassment did not involve a tangible employment action, e.g., hiring, firing, demotion, undesirable reassignment, or other actions resulting in a significant change in employment status.

    39See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html. See also Vance v. Ball State, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2439 (2013); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 806-08 (1998).

    Noting that common-law principles of agency liability “may not be transferable in all their particulars to Title VII,” 40 the Supreme Court fashioned this defense to employer liability in order to “adapt agency concepts to the practical objectives of Title VII.” 41 Specifically, the Court adopted the defense “[i]n order to accommodate the agency principles of vicarious liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority, as well as Title VII's equally basic policies of encouraging forethought by employers and saving action by objecting employees.” 42 The Court reasoned that limiting employer liability would “effect Congress' intention to promote conciliation rather than litigation in the Title VII context and the EEOC's policy of encouraging the development of grievance procedures [by employers].” 43

    40Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 755 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 72 (1986)).

    41Faragher, 524 U.S. at 802.n3.

    42Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 764.

    43Id. (internal citations omitted).

    The Title VII affirmative defense is not appropriately applied to harassment in the housing context because the Fair Housing Act simply follows traditional principles of vicarious liability.44 But even if the Fair Housing Act did authorize policy-driven adaptations of agency principles in some circumstances, the significant difference between the enforcement policies of Title VII and the Fair Housing Act make the affirmative defense to employer liability neither relevant nor appropriate to apply to liability under the Fair Housing Act. Most notably, employees are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before proceeding to court under Title VII,45 whereas the Fair Housing Act has no exhaustion requirement. Nothing in the Act requires victims of housing discrimination, before filing a civil action, to file an administrative complaint with HUD or to await HUD's authorization to initiate a lawsuit. Rather, the Fair Housing Act “provide[s] all victims of [housing discrimination] two alternative mechanisms by which to seek redress: Immediate suit in federal district [or state] court, or a simple, inexpensive, informal conciliation procedure, to be followed by litigation should conciliation efforts fail.” 46 Even where a fair housing complainant chooses to file an administrative complaint with HUD, the complainant need not wait for HUD to act but rather may simultaneously initiate a lawsuit in federal or state court.47

    44See Meyer, 537 U.S. at 285.

    45See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1).

    46Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 104 (1979) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. 3610, 3613.

    47See 42 U.S.C. 3613(a)(2)-(3).

    Nor do the specific, practical concerns that led the Court to adopt the affirmative defense to vicarious liability for certain employment relationships arise in the housing context. In adopting the affirmative defense under Title VII, the Supreme Court distinguished between workplace harassment perpetrated by supervisors, which is often facilitated by the supervisor's agency relationship with the employer, and harassment perpetrated by co-workers, which is not similarly facilitated.48 While the Court recognized that a supervisor's harassing conduct “in [a] sense . . . is always aided by the agency relation” because of his or her power and authority in the workplace,49 the Court also noted that it is “less obvious” that a supervisor is aided by the agency relationship where the supervisor creates a hostile environment that does not involve a tangible employment action.50 The Court was concerned that to hold employers vicariously liable for hostile environment harassment by a supervisor that did not involve a tangible employment action 51 would undermine the traditional distinction between employer liability for harassment by a supervisor, for which employers typically are held vicariously liable, and employer liability for co-worker harassment, for which employers are typically liable under a negligence theory.52 To avoid this result, the Court drew a hard line separating two categories of supervisor harassment: (1) Those involving a tangible employment action, where the supervisory function is clear and manifest, and thus the tort plainly aided by the agency relationship; and (2) those not involving a tangible employment action, where the supervisors' harassment is less distinguishable from harassment by non-supervisory co-workers.53 The Court held that where hostile environment harassment by a supervisor does not result in a tangible employment action, employers can raise the negligence-based affirmative defense to vicarious liability described above.

    48See Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 763-65; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 801-03.

    49Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 763.

    50Id. (observing that “there are acts of harassment a supervisor might commit . . . where the supervisor's status makes little difference.”); see also id. at 761 (defining a “tangible employment action” as “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits”).

    51 With respect to harassment involving a tangible employment action, the Court held that “When a supervisor makes a tangible employment decision, there is assurance the injury could not have been inflicted absent the agency relation. Id. at 761-62. Thus, the Court concluded, “a tangible employment action taken by the supervisor becomes for Title VII purposes the act of the employer.” Id. at 762.

    52See id. at 760 (expressing concern that “an employer would be subject to vicarious liability not only for all supervisor harassment, but also for all co-worker harassment.”); see also id. (citing the “knows or should have known” negligence standard of liability for cases of harassment between “fellow employees” established by 29 CFR 1604.11(d)).

    53See Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762-63.

    But the concerns that led the Supreme Court to distinguish workplace harassment by a supervisor from that by a fellow employee do not extend to the housing context where supervisory status of a housing provider's agent plays a far less significant role in facilitating harassment.54 While workplace harassment may be perpetrated by an agent who has no authority over the terms or conditions of the victim's employment (e.g., by a co-worker) such that the harassment is not aided by the perpetrator's agency relationship with the employer, harassment of a homeseeker or tenant by an agent of a housing provider does involve an agent who has authority over terms or conditions of the homeseeker's or tenant's housing or housing-related services.55 Whether the perpetrator is a property manager, a mortgage loan officer, a realtor, or a management company's maintenance person, a housing provider's agent holds an unmistakable position of power and control over the victimized homeseeker or resident. For example, a property manager can recommend (or sometimes even initiate) the eviction of a harassment victim or refuse to renew a victim's lease, while a maintenance person may withhold repairs to a victim's apartment or may access the victim's apartment without proper notice or justification. Likewise, a realtor can refuse to show a home to or present a purchase offer from a harassment victim, while a loan officer might reject a victim's mortgage application or alter the loan terms being offered. Thus, unlike in the employment arena, an agent who harasses residents or homeseekers is aided by his agency relationship with the housing provider, whether or not a tangible housing action results.56 For this reason, the Title VII affirmative defense is not relevant to the effective resolution of fair housing disputes. Significantly, we are unaware of any court having extended the Title VII affirmative defense to fair housing claims.

    54Cf. Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 207 F. 3d 803, 810 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Title VII affirmative defense does not apply to harassment claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a).

    55Cf. id. at 810 (noting that racially derogatory remarks and other discrimination directed at plaintiff-customers by non-supervisory employee “was just as harmful as if the discriminatory acts had been committed by one of [defendant-employer's] supervisory employees”).

    56See, e.g, Salisbury v. Hickman, 974 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1293 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (noting that “Mr. Crimi's ability [as the on-site property manager] to influence Ms. Salisbury's well-being . . . adds yet another degree of severity to Mr. Crimi's [harassing] conduct. This reality exists even if Mr. Crimi did not engage in any quid pro quo sexual harassment.”).

    Instead, the affirmative defense would add additional burdens that are incompatible with the broad protections and streamlined enforcement mechanisms afforded by the Fair Housing Act. Requiring victims of hostile environment harassment to complain to their housing provider or risk forfeiting their ability to obtain relief under the Fair Housing Act would unduly burden the large proportion of tenants who have little to no contact with their housing providers except through an onsite building manager or maintenance person who may be the very agent responsible for the harassment. Moreover, in HUD's experience, particularly in addressing instances of sexual harassment, tenants who are victims of sexual harassment by the landlord's agent are especially vulnerable. A housing provider's liability for such conduct should not be made contingent upon a tenant's ability to avail herself of a complaint process—even an adequate complaint procedure—established by the housing provider.

    While the risk of retaliation attendant to reporting harassment is serious in the employment context, such risk is even graver in the residential context. Victims of harassment by a landlord's agent not only risk eviction, a particularly severe consequence for low-income tenants whose affordable housing options are limited, they may also suffer physical harm to themselves or their family members in retaliation for filing a grievance. In the most egregious circumstances, an agent may abuse the power conferred by his agency relationship to gain access to a victim's home and inflict violence upon the victim after the victim has reported harassment. In HUD's view, a victim of hostile environment harassment should not be forced to choose between the risk of retaliation and the risk of losing his or her right to hold a housing provider liable for the acts of its agents.

    While Title VII and the Fair Housing Act share a common goal of eliminating discrimination in their respective spheres, the mechanisms for doing so are fundamentally different. In addition, as discussed above, one's workplace and one's home are very different places, with the latter having substantial expectations of privacy, security and safety. Individuals have a justified expectation of freedom from unwelcome conduct in the home.57 The home is “a place where [one is] entitled to feel safe and secure and need not flee.” 58 To adopt Title VII's affirmative defense under the Fair Housing Act would be to ignore these important rights and the distinction between the home and public places, and the differences in the enforcement regimes of the two statutes.

    57Frisby, at 484.

    58Quigley v. Winter, 598 F. 3d 938, 947 (8th Cir. 2010) (sexual harassment violation of Act).

    IV. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order).

    This rule establishes uniform standards for use in investigations and processing cases involving harassment and liability under the Fair Housing Act. As has been discussed in the preamble to this rule, in establishing such standards, HUD is exercising its rulemaking authority to bring uniformity, clarity, and certainty to an area of legal practice.

    The docket file for this rule is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10276, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access the above telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    Environmental Impact

    This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. This rule is limited to the procedures governing fair housing enforcement. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule establishes standards for evaluating claims of harassment and liability under the Fair Housing Act. The scope of the rule is procedural, and the regulatory changes do not establish any substantive regulatory burdens on small entities. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and is not required by statute, or (2) preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

    Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the equal opportunity in housing program is 14.400.

    List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 100

    Aged, Fair housing, Individuals with disabilities, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 100 to read as follows:

    PART 100—DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT 1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3600-3620.

    2. Add § 100.7 to read as follows:
    § 100.7 Liability for discriminatory housing practices.

    (a) Direct liability. (1) A person is directly liable for:

    (i) The person's own conduct that results in a discriminatory housing practice.

    (ii) Failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by that person's employee or agent, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct.

    (iii) Failing to fulfill a duty to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct. The duty to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party can derive from an obligation to the aggrieved person created by contract or lease (including bylaws or other rules of a homeowners association, condominium or cooperative), or by federal, state or local law.

    (2) For purposes of determining liability under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, prompt action to correct and end the discriminatory housing practice may not include any action that penalizes or harms the aggrieved person, such as eviction of the aggrieved person.

    (b) Vicarious liability. A person is vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by the person's agent or employee, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known of the conduct that resulted in a discriminatory housing practice, consistent with agency law.

    3. In § 100.60, add paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) to read as follows:
    § 100.60 Unlawful refusal to sell or rent or to negotiate for the sale or rental.

    (b) * * *

    (6) Conditioning the availability of a dwelling, including the price, qualification criteria, or standards or procedures for securing the dwelling, on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (7) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that causes the person to vacate a dwelling or abandon efforts to secure the dwelling.

    4. In § 100.65, add paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) to read as follows:
    § 100.65 Discrimination in terms, conditions and privileges and in services and facilities.

    (b) * * *

    (6) Conditioning the terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the sale or rental of a dwelling, or denying or limiting the services or facilities in connection therewith, on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (7) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that has the effect of imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the sale or rental of a dwelling or denying or limiting service or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling.

    5. In § 100.80, add paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
    § 100.80 Discriminatory representation on the availability of dwellings.

    (b) * * *

    (6) Representing to an applicant that a unit is unavailable because of the applicant's response to a request for a sexual favor or other harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    6. In § 100.90, add paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) to read as follows:
    § 100.90 Discrimination in the provision of brokerage services.

    (b) * * *

    (5) Conditioning access to brokerage services on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (6) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that has the effect of discouraging or denying access to brokerage services.

    7. In § 100.120, add paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 100.120 Discrimination in the making of loans and in the provision of other financial assistance.

    (b) * * *

    (3) Conditioning the availability of a loan or other financial assistance on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (4) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that affects the availability of a loan or other financial assistance.

    8. In § 100.130, add paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) to read as follows:
    § 100.130 Discrimination in the terms and conditions for making available loans or other financial assistance.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Conditioning the aspect of a loan or other financial assistance to be provided with respect to a dwelling, or the terms or conditions thereof, on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (5) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that has the effect of imposing different terms or conditions for the availability of such loans or other financial assistance.

    9. In § 100.135, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 100.135 Unlawful practices in the selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property.

    (d) Practices which are unlawful under this section include, but are not limited to:

    (1) Using an appraisal of residential real property in connection with the sale, rental, or financing of any dwelling where the person knows or reasonably should know that the appraisal improperly takes into consideration race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (2) Conditioning the terms of an appraisal of residential real property in connection with the sale, rental, or financing of a dwelling on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    10. Add subpart H, consisting of § 100.600, to read as follows: Subpart H— Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment
    § 100.600 Quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment.

    (a) General. Quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or handicap may violate sections 804, 805, 806 or 818 of the Act, depending on the conduct. The same conduct may violate one or more of these provisions.

    (1) Quid pro quo harassment. Quid pro quo harassment refers to an unwelcome request or demand to engage in conduct where submission to the request or demand, either explicitly or implicitly, is made a condition related to: The sale, rental or availability of a dwelling; the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental, or the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith; or the availability, terms, or conditions of a residential real estate-related transaction. An unwelcome request or demand may constitute quid pro quo harassment even if a person acquiesces in the unwelcome request or demand.

    (2) Hostile environment harassment. Hostile environment harassment refers to unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to interfere with: the availability, sale, rental, or use or enjoyment of a dwelling; the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental, or the provision or enjoyment of services or facilities in connection therewith; or the availability, terms, or conditions of a residential real estate-related transaction. Hostile environment harassment does not require a change in the economic benefits, terms, or conditions of the dwelling or housing-related services or facilities, or of the residential real-estate transaction.

    (i) Totality of the circumstances. Whether hostile environment harassment exists depends upon the totality of the circumstances.

    (A) Factors to be considered to determine whether hostile environment harassment exists include, but are not limited to, the nature of the conduct, the context in which the incident(s) occurred, the severity, scope, frequency, duration, and location of the conduct, and the relationships of the persons involved.

    (B) Evidence of psychological or physical harm is relevant in determining whether a hostile environment was created, as well as the amount of damages to which an aggrieved person may be entitled. However, neither psychological nor physical harm must be demonstrated to prove that a hostile environment exists.

    (ii) Title VII affirmative defense. The affirmative defense to an employer's vicarious liability for hostile environment harassment by a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to cases brought pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

    (b) Type of conduct. Harassment can be written, verbal, or other conduct, and does not require physical contact.

    (c) Number of incidents. A single incident of harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap may constitute a discriminatory housing practice, where the incident is severe, or evidences a quid pro quo.

    Dated: September 28, 2015. Gustavo Velasquez, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26587 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9935-29] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) 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 (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

    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).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

    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.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

    New Tolerances

    1. PP 4E8300. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685). Tea Association of the U.S.A., Inc., 362 5th Avenue, Suite 801, New York, New York 10001, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide propiconazole in or on tea at 4 parts per million (ppm). The HPLC/UV Method AG-671A is used to measure and evaluate the chemical propiconazole. Contact: RD.

    2. PP 4E8319. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0822). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin (methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl}-3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-{2-[6-(2- cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pheny1}-3-methoxyacrylate) in or on the raw agricultural commodities Ti palm, leaves at 50 part per million (ppm); Ti palm, roots at 0.5 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 2.0 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm; and Quinoa, grain at 3.0 ppm. An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. Contact: RD.

    3. PP 4E8321 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0788). IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434 for residues of the fungicide, propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H11,2,4-triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (2,41DCBA), expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of propiconazole, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Dill, fresh at 30 ppm; dill, dried at 80 ppm; dill, seed at 15 ppm; leafy Brassica greens, subgroup 5B at 20 ppm; quinoa, grain, at 3.0 ppm; radish, tops at 0.2 ppm; radish, roots at 0.04 ppm; Ti palm, leaves at 10 ppm; Ti palm, roots at 0.3 ppm, watercress at 6 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12-12, except plum at 4 ppm and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.1 ppm. Analytical methods AG-626 and AG-454A were developed for the determination of residues of propiconazole and its metabolites containing the DCBA moiety. Analytical method AG-626 has been accepted and published by EPA as the tolerance enforcement method for crops. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.

    4. PP 4E8337. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of carfentrazone-ethyl (ethyl-alpha-2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzene-propanoate) and the metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl chloropropionic acid (α, 2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic acid)] in or on the raw agricultural commodity quinoa, grain at 0.10 ppm and psyllium, seed at 0.10 ppm. There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of carfentrazone-ethyl and its metabolite in or on food with a limit of quantitation that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set or proposed in the tolerances. Contact: RD.

    5. PP 5E8382. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0559). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide penflufen, (1H-Pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)phenyl]-5-fluoro-1,3-dimethyl-) in or on Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); and Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 0.015 ppm. The high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical penflufen. Contact: RD.

    6. PP 5E8384. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of fluensulfone equivalents (i.e., the sum of thiazole sulfonic acid (TSA) and butene sulfonic acid (BSA) expressed as total fluensulfone equivalents) in or on the raw agricultural commodity Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.6 ppm. Adequate analytical methods for determining fluensulfone in/on appropriate raw agricultural commodities and processed commodities have been developed and validated, including LC-MS/MS methods. The analytical procedures have been successfully validated in terms of specificity, linearity, precision, accuracy and LOQ. Contact: RD.

    7. PP 5E8395. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0629). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of fomesafen, 5-[2-cloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide in or on the raw agricultural commodities Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.025 parts per million (ppm), Berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 0.02 ppm, and Vegetable, legume group 6 at 0.05 ppm. An analytical method using chemical derivatization followed by gas chromatography with Nitrogen-Phosphorus detection (NPD) has been developed and validated for residues of fomesafen in snap/dry beans, cotton seed and cotton gin byproducts, as well as for other crops. Contact: RD.

    8. PP 5F8358. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0646). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 parts per million (ppm) and potato, wet peel at 0.03 ppm. The High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with Column Switching (Method AG-631B), and High Performance Liquid with Mass Spectrometry (HPLC/MS) methods were used to measure and evaluate the chemical cyprodinil and its metabolite CGA-304075. Contact: RD.

    Amended Tolerances

    1. PP 4E8319. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0822). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.507 for residues of azoxystrobin: (methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl}- 3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-{2-[6-(2- cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pheny1}-3-methoxyacrylate) by removing the tolerances in or on the raw agricultural commodities Fruit, stone, group 12 at 1.5 ppm; and Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.02 ppm. An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. Contact: RD.

    2. PP 4E8321 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0788). IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests upon establishment of new propiconazole tolerances above, removing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434 for residues of the fungicide, propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (2,4-DCBA), expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of propiconazole, in or on fruit, stone, group 12 except plum at 4.0 ppm and nut, tree, group 14 at 0.1 ppm to eliminate redundancies. Analytical methods AG-626 and AG-454A were developed for the determination of residues of propiconazole and its metabolites containing the DCBA moiety. Analytical method AG-626 has been accepted and published by EPA as the tolerance enforcement method for crops. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.

    3. PP 5E8395. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0629). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.433 for residues of fomesafen, 5-[2-cloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide by removing the tolerances on the raw agricultural commodities Bean, dry at 0.05 ppm; Bean, snap, succulent at 0.05 ppm; Bean Lima, succulent at 0.05 ppm; Pea, succulent at 0.025 ppm; Potato at 0.025 ppm; Soybean at 0.05 ppm; and Soybean, vegetable succulent at 0.05 ppm. An analytical method using chemical derivatization followed by gas chromatography with Nitrogen-Phosphorus detection (NPD) has been developed and validated for residues of fomesafen in snap/dry beans, cotton seed and cotton gin byproducts, as well as for other crops. Contact: RD.

    4. PP 5F8369. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0561). ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio 44077, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613 for residues of the insecticide flonicamid [(N-(cyanomethyl)-4-trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide) or (N-cyanomethyl-4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide (IUPAC))], including its metabolites, TFNA [4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid], TFNA-AM [4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide], and TFNG [N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)], in or on the raw agricultural commodity Crop Group 14-12, Tree Nuts from 0.15 ppm to 0.3 ppm and the existing tolerance in or on the raw agricultural commodity hops from 7.0 ppm to 30 ppm. An analytical method using LC-MS/MS has been developed to determine the residues of flonicamid and its metabolites, TFNA, TFNA-AM, and TFNG on tree nuts and hops. Contact: RD.

    5. PP 5F8374. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0560). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to amend 40 CFR part 180.682 for residues of the herbicide, Bicyclopyrone: 4-hydroxy-3-{2-[(2-methoxyethoxy) methyl}-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridylcarbonyl} bicyclo oct-3-en-2-one, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Wheat, forage at 0.50 parts per million (ppm); wheat, grain, at 0.04 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.9 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.50 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.15 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.10 ppm; wheat, aspirated grain fractions at 0.50 ppm; barley, grain, at 0.07 ppm, barley, hay at 0.3 ppm; barley, straw at 0.50 ppm; barley, bran at 0.15 ppm; and barley, germ at 0.10 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology is available for data collection enforcement of bicyclopyrone residues. Analytical methods GRM030.05A and GRM030.08A have also undergone independent laboratory validation (ILV) to demonstrate the suitability of the methods for the monitoring of residues of bicyclopyrone in crops and animal tissues. All study methods and validation reports have been found acceptable by the EPA. Contact: RD.

    New Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP IN-10836. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0630). Spring Trading Company, 203 Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, Texas 77354-5201, on behalf of Lamberti USA, Inc., 14622 Exxon Road, Conroe, Texas 77302, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ester with α-[2,4,6-tris(1-phenylethyl)phenyl]-ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2- ethanediyl), compd. with 2,2′,2″-nitrilotris[ethanol] (CAS Reg. No. 1477613-46-9) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    2. PP IN-10838. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0631). Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of di-n-butyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 105-99-7) when used as an inert ingredient (component of plastic container strips) in pesticide formulations applied to the entrance to bee hives to control varroa mites under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    3. PP IN-10854. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0655). SciReg., Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, on behalf of Taminco U.S., Inc., Subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Co., Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 400, 7540 Windsor Drive, Allentown, PA 18195, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-butyl- (CAS Reg No. 3470-98-2) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the request is for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26779 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 [EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0109; FRL-9935-99-Region 6] Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The State of Texas has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Texas. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by direct final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the direct final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the direct final rule will become effective 60 days after publication and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Send your written comments by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0109 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas Texas 75202-2733.

    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. Direct your comment to Docket No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0070. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. You can view and copy Texas' application and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following locations: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, (TCEQ) 12100 Park S. Circle, Austin, Texas 78753-3087, (512) 239-6079 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, (214) 665-8533, EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and Email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: October 1, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26783 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 246, and 252 [Docket No. 2015-0038] RIN 0750-AI58 Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts—Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is hosting a public meeting to obtain the views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding further implementation of the requirement for detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts, as required by a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

    DATES:

    Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held on November 13, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST. Registration to attend this meeting must be received by November 9, 2015.

    Submission of Comments: The comment period for the proposed rule published on September 21, 2015 (80 FR 56939) is extended. Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown in ADDRESSES on or before December 11, 2015, to be considered in formation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held at the Mark Center Auditorium, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3603. The Mark Center Auditorium is located on level B-1 of the building.

    Submission of Comments: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2014-D005, using any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2014-D005” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2014-D005.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2014-D005” on your attached document.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2014-D005 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Amy Williams, DPAP/DARS, at 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DoD is interested in continuing a dialogue with experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector about further implementation of the requirements for detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts in DoD contracts.

    On May 6, 2014, DoD published a final rule under DFARS Case 2012-D055, entitled “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts” (78 FR 26092). That final rule constituted the initial partial implementation of section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), as modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291).

    On May 9, 2014, DoD published notice of a public meeting (79 FR 26725), which was held on June 16, 2014, to address further implementation of detections and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts.

    On September 21, 2015, DoD published a proposed rule under DFARS Case 2014-D005, entitled “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts—Further Implementation” (80 FR 56939). The due date for comments on this proposed rule is extended from November 20, 2015, to December 11, 2015.

    Registration: Individuals wishing to attend the public meeting should register by November 9, 2015, to ensure adequate room accommodations and to facilitate entry to the meeting. Interested parties may register at this Web site, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/counterfeit_electronic_parts_further_implementation_2015.html, by providing the following information:

    (1) Company or organization name.

    (2) Names and email addresses of persons planning to attend.

    (3) Identify if desiring to make a presentation; limit to a 5-minute presentation per company or organization. This limitation may be subject to adjustment, depending on the number of entities requesting to present, in order to ensure adequate time for discussion.

    One valid government-issued photo identification card will be required in order to enter the building. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes early to accommodate security procedures. Public parking is not available at the Mark Center.

    Presentations: If you wish to make a presentation, please submit an electronic copy of your presentation to [email protected] no later than November 9, 2015. When submitting presentations, provide presenter's name, organization affiliation, telephone number, and email address on the cover page. Please submit presentations only and cite “Public Meeting, DFARS Case 2014-D005” in all correspondence related to the public meeting. There will be no transcription at the meeting. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting.

    Special accommodations: The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for reasonable accommodations, sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Amy Williams at 571-372-6106, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.

    The TTY number for further information is: 1-800-877-8339. When the operator answers the call, let them know the agency is the Department of Defense; the point of contact is Amy Williams at 571-372-6106.

    Correspondence and Comments: Please cite “Public Meeting, DFARS Case 2014-D005” in all correspondence related to this public meeting. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting. To have a presentation considered as a public comment for the formation of the final rule, the presentation, or pertinent excerpts, must be submitted separately as a written comment as instructed in the paragraph titled “Submission of Comments” in ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 246, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26749 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    80 203 Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee To Begin Planning a Series of Public Hearings To Study Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in Indiana AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 3:00-4:30 p.m. EST for the purpose of preparing for a series of public hearings to study Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in Indiana.

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-438-5535 conference ID: 8231614. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also invited to make statements during the scheduled open comment period. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days after the Committee meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and following the meeting at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=247 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda 1. Welcome and Roll Call 2. Preparatory Discussion Regarding Public Hearing “Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in Indiana
    a. Agenda of Panelists b. Location c. Date and Time d. Schedule of Events 3. Open Comment 4. Adjournment DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday November 4, 2015, from 3:00-4:30 p.m. EST.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-438-5535 Conference ID: 8231614 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected]

    Dated: October 15, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26681 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 150903817-5817-01] Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of Records AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/ITA-1, Individuals Identified in Export Transactions.”

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), as amended, Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) 552a(e)(4) and (11); and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix 1, “Federal Agency Responsibility for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” the Department of Commerce (Department) is issuing a notice of intent to amend the system of records entitled “COMMERCE/ITA-1, Individuals Identified in Export Transactions,” by transferring the system from the International Trade Administration (ITA) to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and by renaming the system to “COMMERCE/BIS-1, Individuals Identified in Export Transactions and Other Matters Subject to BIS Jurisdiction.” The purpose of this amendment is also to update: (a) The security classification, system location, and system manager and address; (b) the categories of individuals covered by the system; (c) the categories of records in the system; (d) the authority for maintenance of the system; (e) the storage, retrievability, safeguards, retention, and disposal of records; (f) the notification, record access, and contesting record procedures; (g) the routine uses by adding the breach notification routine use; (h) records source categories; and (i) exemptions claimed for the system.

    The information is collected for identification purposes of individuals involved in export transactions chosen for or participating in export regulation outreach, education and information programs; individuals seeking export licenses or other authorizations from BIS, as well as related end use checks; individuals providing information pursuant to laws or regulations administered or enforced by BIS; or individuals under suspicion or investigation or having been convicted of or otherwise found liable for violations of export control laws or other laws or regulations administered by BIS. We invite public comment on the amended system announced in this publication.

    DATES:

    To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2015. Unless comments are received, the new system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to the Privacy Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 6622, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 6622, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice announces the Department's proposal to amend the system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974, for Individuals Identified in Export Transactions records. The changes are needed because the existing notice for this system of records identifies ITA as the owner of the system, which is no longer the case as the system of records has been transferred to BIS. These changes clarify the scope of laws and regulations administered or enforced by BIS. Information collections would be obtained from individuals under the authority of the Export Administration Act of 1979, the Export Administration Regulations, the Security Assistance Act of 2002, the Foreign Trade Regulations, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the United States Additional Protocol Implementation Act, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, the Defense Production Act of 1950, and the Fastener Quality Act. Further, these changes clarify the types of records maintained.

    COMMERCE/BIS-1 SYSTEM NAME:

    COMMERCE/BIS-1, Individuals Identified in Export Transactions and Other Matters Subject to BIS Jurisdiction.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified, Sensitive.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    a. Individuals involved in export transactions. This information is maintained on domestic and foreign companies and business officials, and includes U.S. citizens involved with or working for firms abroad.

    b. Individuals identified in a BIS export enforcement proceeding or investigation. Individuals alleged to have violated the Export Administration Regulations; certain other individuals identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or other investigating agencies or individuals in the investigative process such as those involved in organized crime; individuals who have received warning letters; and individuals subject to prohibitions, licensing requirements, or other restrictions.

    c. Individuals identified in export license applications, licenses, or other authorizations from BIS, including related end use checks.

    d. Individuals identified in proceedings or investigations related to other laws and regulations administered, or enforced by BIS.

    e. Individuals who have provided information to BIS to participate in export regulation outreach, education and information programs.

    f. Individuals who have otherwise provided information to BIS pursuant to laws and regulations administered or enforced by BIS.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Reports and cables from U.S. Foreign Service's posts; FBI and other U.S. or foreign law enforcement or investigative agencies, investigators or informants; investigative and intelligence data; documented violations; warning letters; licensing information; export transaction information; and information obtained pursuant to other laws or regulations administered or enforced by BIS. Also includes any information on alleged or proven violators of the Export Administration Act or Regulations, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or any other law or regulation administered or enforced by BIS and information collected to meet U.S. treaty obligations, for which BIS is responsible to implement. Examples of these categories of records and data items may include, but are not limited to: (1) Identifying Numbers; (2) General Personal Data; (3) Work-Related Data; (4) Distinguishing Features/Biometrics; and (5) System Administration/Audit Data.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Export Administration Act of 1979 (Pub L. 96-72, 50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420), Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 730-799), the Security Assistance Act of 2002 (13 U.S.C. 305) and the Foreign Trade Regulations (15 CFR 30.60 and 30.73), International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), 5 U.S.C. 301, 22 U.S.C. 401, 22 U.S.C. 8544, 28 U.S.C. 533-535, 44 U.S.C. 3101, United States Additional Protocol Implementation Act (Pub. L. 109-401), Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.), Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), Fastener Quality Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.).

    PURPOSES:

    The purpose of this system is to maintain records that are related to the administration, enforcement, and implementation of the laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of BIS. Included in these records is information regarding individuals involved or identified in export transactions, export license applications, licenses, or other authorizations from BIS, and individuals identified in BIS export enforcement proceedings or suspected of violating statutes, regulations, or Executive Orders administered, enforced, or implemented by BIS.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    1. In the event that a system or records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.

    2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.

    3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.

    5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.

    6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.

    7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

    9. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: for personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.

    10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (i.e. GSA or Department) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals.

    11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or whether systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed for law enforcement purposes to the appropriate agency or other authority, whether federal, state, local, foreign, international or tribal, charged with the responsibility of enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting a violation of any law, rule, regulation, or order in any case in which there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law (civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature).

    13. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to an agency, organization, foreign government or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations or meeting treaty obligations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function or treaty obligations.

    14. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to contractors and BIS or contractor agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, governmental or non-governmental cooperative agreement (including under the Economy Act), or other work assignment for BIS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to BIS employees.

    15. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, the Treasury, Defense, or Energy, or other federal agencies, in connection with BIS licensing policy, enforcement matters, or other matters of mutual interest or concern, including through interagency databases;

    16. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the general public, in furtherance of BIS's mission, regarding individuals and entities whose export privileges have been denied or limited. This routine use includes disclosure of information to the general public in furtherance of BIS's mission regarding individuals and entities that have been denied export privileges by BIS, or who are subject to additional restrictions and license requirements. This routine use encompasses publishing this information in the Federal Register, in the Code of Federal Regulations, on BIS's Web site, and by other means. Individuals and entities on the Denied Persons List are generally designated based on authorities denying or restricting their export privileges because of identified threats to the national security, foreign policy, and/or economy of the United States. Generally, the personal identifier information provided on the Denied Persons List may include, but is not limited to, names and aliases, addresses, dates of birth, citizenship information, and, at times, identification numbers associated with government-issued documents. It is necessary to provide this identifier information in a publicly available format so that listed individuals and entities can be identified and prevented from engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited by the EAR. At the same time, the release of detailed identifier information of individuals is important in helping to protect other individuals from being improperly identified as the prohibited party. Because the Denied Persons List are posted on BIS's public Web site and published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations, a designated individual's identifier information can be accessed by any individual or entity with access to the internet, the Federal Register, or the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, the impact on the individual's privacy will be substantial, but this is necessary in order to make targeted denial orders and restrictions effective. Designated individuals can file an appeal or petition to request their removal from these lists. If such an appeal is granted, the individual's name and all related identifier information will be removed from the Denied Persons List.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    Not applicable.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Paper records in file folders and electronic records in computer files.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Filed alphabetically by individual's name or by other personal identifiers, by an identifying case number upon initiation of the case or by an identifying transaction number upon successful transmission of the export transaction information.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Paper records and discs are maintained in office areas with access limited to screened personnel whose official duties require access. Automated records are maintained on protected servers in data centers with access limited to screened personnel whose official duties require access.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Retention and disposal practices are in accordance with approved General Services Administration schedules. Generally, records are retained for periods of 5-15 years, unless a longer period is deemed necessary for investigative purposes or for permanent archival retention.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) ADDRESSES:

    Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Information may be obtained from: Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requestor should provide name, address and case or subject, if known, pursuant to the inquiry provisions of the Department's rules which appear in 15 CFR part 4.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Requests from individuals should be addressed to: Same address as stated in the notification section above.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The department's rules for access, for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4b. Use above address.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Individual exporters, those authorized by the individual exporters to furnish information, trade sources, investigative agencies, intelligence, investigative, legal, and other personnel of BIS or the Department of Commerce, informants, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Department of State on an official “need to know” basis. Also, individuals authorized to furnish information pursuant to laws or regulations administered by BIS.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), all information about an individual in the record which meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) are exempted from the notice, access and contest requirements of the agency regulations and from all parts of 5 U.S.C. 552a except subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2) on condition that the 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) exemption is held to be invalid, all investigatory material in the record which meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2) are exempted from the notice, access, and contest requirements (under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f)) of the agency regulations because of the necessity to exempt this information and material in order to accomplish the law enforcement function of the agency, to prevent subjects of investigation from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, to maintain access to sources of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel. Section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 also protects certain parts of this information and material related to or concerning export licenses from disclosure, and other certain parts of this information may be protected from disclosure by the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, the Additional Protocol Implementation Act of 2006, and the Defense Production Act of 1950.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Michael J. Toland, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer, Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26776 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on November 5, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.

    3. Industry Presentations.

    4. New Business.

    Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than October 29, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26688 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-848] Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC) with respect to Hubei Qianjiang Huashan Aquatic Food and Product Co., Ltd. (Hubei Qianjiang).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hermes Pinilla, 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC published in the Federal Register on September 15, 1997.1 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we received a timely request for a NSR of the order from Hubei Qianjiang.2 Hubei Qianjiang certified that it is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request was based.3

    1See Notice of Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 (September 15, 1997) (Crawfish Order).

    2See Hubei Qianjiang's new shipper request dated September 2, 2015.

    3See Hubei Qianjiang's new shipper request at Attachment 1.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Hubei Qianjiang certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI).4 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Hubei Qianjiang certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the POI.5 As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Hubei Qianjiang also certified that its export activities were not controlled by the government of the PRC.6

    4Id.

    5Id.

    6Id.

    In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Hubei Qianjiang submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.7

    7See Hubei Qianjiang's new shipper request at Attachments 1 and 2.

    Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) for this NSR is September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015.

    Initiation of New Shipper Review

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that the request from Hubei Qianjiang meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR for shipments of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC produced and exported by Hubei Qianjiang.8

    8See the memorandum to the file entitled “Freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China: Initiation Checklist for Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hubei Qianjiang Huashan Aquatic Food and Product Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this NSR no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and final results of the review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued.9 It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economy countries, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Hubei Qianjiang which will include a section requesting information concerning its eligibility for a separate rate. The NSR of Hubei Qianjiang will be rescinded if the Department determines that Hubei Qianjiang has not demonstrated that it is eligible for a separate rate.

    9See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

    We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Hubei Qianjiang in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Hubei Qianjiang certified that it produced and exported subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for the request for a NSR, we will apply the bonding privilege to Hubei Qianjiang only for subject merchandise which was produced and exported by Hubei Qianjiang.

    To assist in its analysis of the bona fides of Hubei Qianjiang's sales, upon initiation of this NSR, the Department will require Hubei Qianjiang to submit on an ongoing basis complete transaction information concerning any sales of subject merchandise to the United States that were made subsequent to the POR.

    Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in the NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

    This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26763 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-018] Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).

    DATES:

    Effective date: October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kabir Archuletta or Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593 or (202) 482-6905, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 26, 2015, the Department published the final determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the PRC.1 On October 7, 2015, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the PRC.2

    1See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 51779 (August 26, 2015) (“Final Determination”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    2See Letter to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Meredith Broadbent, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China (October 7, 2015). See also Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-523 and 731-TA-1259 (Final), 80 FR 61841 (October 14, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks (“boltless steel shelving”). The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) necessary to assemble a completed shelving unit (with or without decks) are packaged together for ultimate purchase by the end-user. The scope also includes add-on kits. Add-on kits include, but are not limited to, kits that allow the end-user to add an extension shelving unit onto an existing boltless steel shelving unit such that the extension and the original unit will share common frame elements (e.g., two posts). The term “boltless” refers to steel shelving in which the vertical and horizontal supports forming the frame are assembled primarily without the use of nuts and bolts or screws. The vertical and horizontal support members for boltless steel shelving are assembled by methods such as, but not limited to, fitting a rivet, punched or cut tab or other similar connector on one support into a hole, slot or similar receptacle on another support. The supports lock together to form the frame for the shelving unit, and provide the structural integrity of the shelving unit separate from the inclusion of any decking. The incidental use of nuts and bolts or screws to add accessories, wall anchors, tie-bars or shelf supports does not remove the product from scope. Boltless steel shelving units may also come packaged as partially assembled, such as when two upright supports are welded together with front-to-back supports, or are otherwise connected, to form an end unit for the frame. The boltless steel shelving covered by this order may be commonly described as rivet shelving, welded frame shelving, slot and tab shelving, and punched rivet (quasi-rivet) shelving as well as by other trade names. The term “deck” refers to the shelf that sits on or fits into the horizontal supports (beams or braces) to provide the horizontal storage surface of the shelving unit.

    The scope includes all boltless steel shelving meeting the description above, regardless of (1) vertical support or post type (including but not limited to open post, closed post and tubing); (2) horizontal support or beam/brace profile (including but not limited to Z-beam, C-beam, L-beam, step beam and cargo rack); (3) number of supports; (4) surface coating (including but not limited to paint, epoxy, powder coating, zinc and other metallic coating); (5) number of levels; (6) weight capacity; (7) shape (including but not limited to rectangular, square, and corner units); (8) decking material (including but not limited to wire decking, particle board, laminated board or no deck at all); or (9) the boltless method by which vertical and horizontal supports connect (including but not limited to keyhole and rivet, slot and tab, welded frame, punched rivet and clip).

    Specifically excluded from the scope are:

    • Wall-mounted shelving, defined as shelving that is hung on the wall and does not stand on, or transfer load to, the floor; 3

    3 The addition of a wall bracket or other device to attach otherwise freestanding subject merchandise to a wall does not meet the terms of this exclusion.

    • wire shelving units, which consist of shelves made from wire that incorporates both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create the finished shelving unit;

    • bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units; and

    • made-to-order shelving systems.

    Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical subheadings 9403.20.0018, 9403.20.0020, 9403.20.0025, and 9403.20.0026, but may also enter through HTSUS 9403.10.0040. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Antidumping Duty Order

    In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that imports of boltless steel shelving from the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this antidumping duty order.

    As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of boltless steel shelving from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2015, the date on which the Department published the Preliminary Determination, 4 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination, as further described below.

    4See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 17409 (April 1, 2015) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on entries of subject merchandise from the PRC. We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as indicated in the chart below, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.5 These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Final Determination 80 FR at 51781 (describing the adjustments to the AD duty margins in more detail); see also sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act, respectively. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, as discussed above.6 The “PRC-wide” rate applies to all exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed.

    6See sections 736(a)(3), 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of an exporter that accounted for a significant proportion of exports of boltless steel shelving from the PRC, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months.7 In the underlying investigation, the Department published the Preliminary Determination on April 1, 2015. Therefore, the six-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination ended on September 27, 2015. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    7See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 21207, 21208 (April 17, 2015).

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of boltless steel shelving from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after September 27, 2015, the date the provisional measures expired, and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margin

    The weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages are as follows:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-Average margin
  • (percent)
  • Zhongda United Holding Group Co., Ltd Jiaxing Zhongda Metalwork Co., Ltd 17.55 Jiaxing Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd Jiaxing Zhongda Metalwork Co., Ltd 17.55 Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd Haifa (Ningbo) Office Equipment Co., Ltd 17.55 Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd Ningbo Decko Metal Products Trade Co., Ltd 17.55 Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd Lianfa Metal Product Co., Ltd 17.55 Meridian International Co., Ltd Zhejiang Limai Metal Products Co., Ltd 17.55 Zhejiang Limai Metal Products Co., Ltd Zhejiang Limai Metal Products Co., Ltd 17.55 HoiFat (NingBo) Office Facilities Co., Ltd HoiFat (NingBo) Office Facilities Co., Ltd 17.55 PRC-Wide Entity (including Nanjing Topsun Racking Manufacturing Co., Ltd.) 112.68

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to boltless steel shelving from the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

    This order is published in accordance with sections 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26765 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 18, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated a changed circumstance review (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (“solar cells”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) in response to a request from Neo Solar Power Corporation (“Neo Solar”), DelSolar Co., Ltd. (“DelSolar Taiwan”), and DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd. (“DelSolar Wujiang”).1 Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department preliminarily determines that Neo Solar is not the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan for purposes of determining antidumping duty (“AD”) liability in this proceeding. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 15568 (March 24, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”). We note that although the request was submitted on behalf of DelSolar Taiwan, the purported predecessor company, the request also states that DelSolar Taiwan no longer exists as a legal entity.

    DATES:

    Effective date: October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0167.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 7, 2012, the Department published the AD order on solar cells from the PRC in the Federal Register.2 On February 4, 2015, Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang requested that the Department conduct an expedited CCR pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) to determine that Neo Solar is the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan for purposes of the Order. 3 On March 6, 2015, SolarWorld Americas, Inc., petitioner in the underlying investigation of solar cells (“Petitioner”), submitted comments opposing initiation of this review, contending that Neo Solar should not be treated as the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan because Neo Solar has neither established that it operates as the same business entity as DelSolar Taiwan, nor that it is eligible for a separate rate.4

    2See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012) (“Order”).

    3See Letter from Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Changed Circumstances Review Request,” dated February 4, 2015 (“CCR Request”).

    4See Letter from the Petitioner, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Comments on Neo Solar Power Corporation's Request for a Changed Circumstances Review,” dated March 6, 2015 (“Petitioner's Initiation Comments”).

    The Department initiated this CCR on March 18, 2015.5 On June 4, 2015, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang.6 On June 30, 2015, Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang timely responded to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.7

    5See Initiation Notice.

    6See Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office IV, “Supplemental Questionnaire in the Changed Circumstances Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 4, 2015 (“Supplemental Questionnaire”).

    7See Letter from Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 30, 2015 (“Supplemental Questionnaire Response”).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials. Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    A complete description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.8 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    8See “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Neo Solar Power Corporation and DelSolar Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently and hereby adopted in this notice.

    Methodology

    In accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are conducting this CCR based upon the information contained in the submissions of Neo Solar, DelSolar Taiwan, and DelSolar Wujiang.9 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    9See CCR Request and Supplemental Questionnaire Response.

    Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review

    Based on record evidence, we preliminarily determine that Neo Solar is not the successor-in-interest to DelSolar Taiwan. Specifically, we find that material changes occurred after DelSolar Taiwan merged with, and became part of, Neo Solar, including significant changes in management, the board of directors, and ownership. In addition, we find that Neo Solar did not demonstrate that its operations, with respect to the subject merchandise, were materially similar to the operations of DelSolar Taiwan when it comes to supplier relationships and customer base. Thus, we preliminarily determine that Neo Solar does not operate as the same business entity as DelSolar Taiwan with respect to the subject merchandise. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum appears in the Appendix to this notice.

    If the Department upholds these preliminary results in the final results, Neo Solar will be subject to the cash deposit rate currently assigned to the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 238.95 percent).10

    10See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 80 FR 40998 (July 14, 2015).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register.11 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed by no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.12 Parties that submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.13 All briefs are to be filed electronically using ACCESS.14 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.15

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). The Department has exercised its discretion under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) to alter the time limit for submission of case briefs.

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    14See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    15Id.

    Any interested party may submit a request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance using ACCESS within 14 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.16 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.17 Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.18

    16See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    17Id.

    18See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Final Results of the Review

    Unless extended, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of this changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which the review was initiated.

    Notification to Parties

    The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(i).

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review Discussion of Methodology Successor-in-Interest Analysis 1. Ownership and Management 2. Production Facilities 3. Supplier Relationships 4. Customer Base V. Summary of Preliminary Findings VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-26762 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-351-846, C-580-884, C-489-827] Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Turkey: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin at (202) 482-6478 (Brazil); Katie Marksberry at (202) 482-7906 (Republic of Korea); Emily Halle at (202) 482-0176 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 31, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Turkey.1 The notice of initiation stated that, in accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), we would issue our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of initiation, unless postponed. Currently, the preliminary determinations in these investigations are due no later than November 4, 2015.

    1See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 80 FR 54267 (September 9, 2015).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered, the novelty of the issues presented, or the number of firms whose activities must be investigated, and additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination. Under this section of the Act, the Department may postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

    The Department determines that the parties involved in these hot-rolled steel CVD investigations are cooperating, and that the investigations are extraordinarily complicated. Additional time is required to analyze the questionnaire responses and issue appropriate requests for clarification and additional information.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the Department is postponing the time period for the preliminary determinations of these investigations by 65 days, to January 8, 2016. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26775 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Adminstration [C-570-019] Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale (“boltless steel shelving”) from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”). Also, as explained in this notice, we are amending our Final Determination  1 to correct a ministerial error with respect to the CVD rate applied to companies that did not respond to the Department's quantity and value (“Q&V”) questionnaire.

    1See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 80 FR 51775 (August 26, 2015) (“Final Determination”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“I&D Memo”).

    DATES:

    Effective date: October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202.482.2593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 26, 2015, the Department published the Final Determination. The period of investigation is January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. On August 24, 2015, Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“Petitioner”) timely filed a ministerial error allegation.2 On August 31, 2015, the Government of China (“GOC”) filed rebuttal comments to Petitioner's Comments.3

    2See Petitioner's August 24, 2015 submission.

    3See the GOC's August 31, 2015 submission.

    On October 7, 2015, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from the PRC.4

    4See Letter to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Meredith Broadbent, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China (October 7, 2015). See also Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-523 AND 731-TA-1259 (Final), 80 FR 61841 (October 14, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this investigation covers boltless steel shelving, with or without decks. The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) necessary to assemble a completed shelving unit (with or without decks) are packaged together for ultimate purchase by the end-user. The scope also includes add-on kits. Add-on kits include, but are not limited to, kits that allow the end-user to add an extension shelving unit onto an existing boltless steel shelving unit such that the extension and the original unit will share common frame elements (e.g., two posts). The term “boltless” refers to steel shelving in which the vertical and horizontal supports forming the frame are assembled primarily without the use of nuts and bolts, or screws. The vertical and horizontal support members for boltless steel shelving are assembled by methods such as, but not limited to, fitting a rivet, punched or cut tab, or other similar connector on one support into a hole, slot or similar receptacle on another support. The supports lock together to form the frame for the shelving unit, and provide the structural integrity of the shelving unit separate from the inclusion of any decking. The incidental use of nuts and bolts, or screws to add accessories, wall anchors, tie-bars or shelf supports does not remove the product from scope. Boltless steel shelving units may also come packaged as partially assembled, such as when two upright supports are welded together with front-to-back supports, or are otherwise connected, to form an end unit for the frame. The boltless steel shelving covered by this investigation may be commonly described as rivet shelving, welded frame shelving, slot and tab shelving, and punched rivet (quasi-rivet) shelving as well as by other trade names. The term “deck” refers to the shelf that sits on or fits into the horizontal supports (beams or braces) to provide the horizontal storage surface of the shelving unit.

    The scope includes all boltless steel shelving meeting the description above, regardless of (1) vertical support or post type (including but not limited to open post, closed post and tubing); (2) horizontal support or beam/brace profile (including but not limited to Z-beam, C-beam, L-beam, step beam and cargo rack); (3) number of supports; (4) surface coating (including but not limited to paint, epoxy, powder coating, zinc and other metallic coating); (5) number of levels; (6) weight capacity; (7) shape (including but not limited to rectangular, square, and corner units); (8) decking material (including but not limited to wire decking, particle board, laminated board or no deck at all); or (9) the boltless method by which vertical and horizontal supports connect (including but not limited to keyhole and rivet, slot and tab, welded frame, punched rivet and clip).

    Specifically excluded from the scope are:

    • Wall-mounted shelving, defined as shelving that is hung on the wall and does not stand on, or transfer load to, the floor; 5

    5 The addition of a wall bracket or other device to attach otherwise freestanding subject merchandise to a wall does not meet the terms of this exclusion.

    • wire shelving units, which consist of shelves made from wire that incorporates both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create the finished shelving unit;

    • bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units; and

    • made-to-order shelving systems.

    Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical subheadings 9403.20.0018, 9403.20.0020, 9403.20.0025, and 9403.20.0026, but may also enter through HTSUS 9403.10.0040. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Ministerial Error Allegation and Amendment to the Final Affirmative CVD Determination

    A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f), the Department is amending the Final Determination to reflect the correction of a ministerial error it made in the final margin assigned companies which did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire. As a result, we have revised the margin assigned to these companies.7

    6See section 705(e) of the Act.

    7See the “Suspension of Liquidation” section below.

    On August 24, 2015, Petitioner submitted a ministerial error allegation claiming that the Department made a ministerial error by assigning a rate of 80.45 percent to the companies which did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire, when it should have assigned the rate of 80.39 percent to these companies, as noted in the I&D Memo. The GOC agrees with Petitioner's allegation.

    The Department reviewed the record and agrees that Petitioner's allegation constitutes a ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(f), the Department made an unintentional error by listing the incorrect rate assigned to companies which did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire, which constitutes a ministerial error.8 We have corrected this error in this notice.

    8See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Susan Pulongbarit, Senior Analyst, Office V, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegation,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Countervailing Duty Order

    In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing boltless steel shelves is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of boltless steel shelves from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) and 706(a) of the Act, we are publishing this countervailing duty order.

    As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of boltless steel shelving from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2014, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register,9 and before May 30, 2015, the date on which the Department instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Entries of boltless steel shelving from the PRC made on or after May 30, 2015, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register, are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties, due to the Department's discontinuation, effective May 30, 2015, of the suspension of liquidation.

    9See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 5089 (January 30, 2015) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute suspension of liquidation, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register, and to assess, upon further instruction by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise. The Department will also direct CBP to require a cash deposit for each entry of subject merchandise in an amount equal to the net countervailable subsidy rates listed below. The all-others rate applies to all producers and exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed.

    Company Subsidy rate (Percent) Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd. 12.40 Nanjing Topsun Racking Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 15.05 All Others 13.73 Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Dongguan Yuan Er Sheng Machinery Source Hardware Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Dong Rong Metal Products Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Global Storage Equipment Manufacturer Limited * 80.39 Intradin (Shanghai) Import & Export Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Jinhua Development District Hongfa Tool, Ltd.* 80.39 Kunshan Jisheng Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Nanjing Huade Warehousing Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd.* 80.39 Nanjing Whitney Metal Products Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Nanjing Yodoly Logistics Equipments Manufacturing Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Ningbo Decko Metal Products Trade Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Ningbo Haifa Metal Works Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Ningbo HaiFa Office Equipment Co., Ltd.* 80.39 Ningbo TLT Metal Products Co., Ltd.* 80.39 * Non-cooperative company to which an adverse facts available rate is being applied. See “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section in the I&D Memo. Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to boltless steel shelving from the PRC, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.

    This amended final determination is issued and published in accordance with section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (f). This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26764 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE262 Schedule for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS published a notice on September 10, 2015, announcing the dates and locations of three Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops to be held during October through December of 2015. Attendance at an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers in order to meet certain regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Based upon recent analysis indicating the need for an additional workshop in the New York and southern New England area to accommodate shark dealers who purchase smooth dogfish, this notice announces a free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop that will be conducted during December of 2015 in Bohemia, NY. Additional Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be conducted during 2016 and will be announced in a future notice.

    DATES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification workshop will be held on December 10, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop will be held in Bohemia, NY. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details on the workshop location.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The complete workshop schedule, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/workshops/.

    Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 115 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2007.

    Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

    Since 2010, as part of their 2008 Interstate Coastal Shark Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has required all state dealers who purchase sharks to hold a Federal commercial shark dealer permit. A recent comparison of dealers who have reported purchasing smooth dogfish in 2015 with a current list of Federal shark dealer permit holders indicated that a number of state dealers in some Atlantic coastal states did not hold a Federal commercial shark dealer permit. On October 8, 2015, ASMFC notified all states from Maine through Florida of this issue, and reminded them of the requirement that all shark dealers must hold a Federal commercial shark dealer permit. In addition, NMFS is currently in final rulemaking for Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (August 7, 2014, 79 FR 4627), which will establish an effective date for many of the smooth dogfish regulations that were finalized in Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, including the requirement for vessel and dealer permits. Given ASMFC's recently discovered need to ensure that all state dealers purchasing smooth dogfish are federally permitted and in anticipation of the final rule for Amendment 9 and its requirements, NMFS has determined that an additional Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is needed to accommodate shark dealers in the New York and southern New England area. Affected dealers may also attend the previously scheduled November 12, 2015, workshop in Mount Pleasant, SC, or the December 3, 2015, workshop in Largo, FL (80 FR 54533).

    Date, Time, and Location of Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop

    December 10, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 10 Aero Road, Bohemia, NY 11706.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at [email protected] or at (386) 852-8588.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

    • All participants must bring proof of identification.

    • Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

    • Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26767 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0605.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1,482.

    Average Hours per Response: Sector operations plan and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, 640 hr/response; Monitoring service provider initial application, 10 hr/response; Monitoring service provider response to application disapproval, 10 hr/response; Data entry for sector discard monitoring system, 3 min/response; Sector weekly catch report, 4 hr/response; Sector annual report, 12 hr/response; Notification of expulsion from a sector, 30 min/response; Request to transfer Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE), 5 min/response; VMS certification form, 10 min/response; VMS confirmation call, 5 min/response; VMS area and DAS declaration, 5 min/response; VMS trip-level catch report; VMS daily catch reports when fishing in multiple broad stock areas, 15 min/response; Daily VMS catch reports when fishing in the U.S./Canada Management Area and CA II SAPs, 15 min/response; Daily VMS catch reports when fishing in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, 15 min/response; Daily VMS catch reports when fishing in the Regular B DAS Program, 15 min/response; Pre-trip hail report, 2 min/response; Trip-end hail report, 15 min/response; Forward trip start/end hails to NMFS, 2 min/response; ASM Pre-Trip Notification, 2 min/response; Vessel notification of selection for at-sea monitoring coverage, 5 min/response; at-sea monitor deployment report, 10 min/response; at-sea monitoring service provider catch report to NMFS upon request, 5 min/response; at-sea monitor report of harassment and other issues, 30 min/response; at-sea monitoring service provider contract upon request, 30 min/response; at-sea monitoring service provider information materials upon request, 30 min/response; OLE debriefing of at-sea monitors, 2 hr/response; ASM Database and Data Entry Requirements, 3 min/response; Observer program pre-trip notification, 2 min/response; DAS Transfer Program, 5min/response; Expedited Submission of Proposed SAPs, 20 hr/response; NAFO Reporting Requirements, 10 min/response.

    Burden Hours: 38,812.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for revision and extension of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. We, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Regional Fishery Management Councils are delegated the majority of this responsibility. The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) develops management plans for fishery resources in New England.

    In 2010, we implemented a new suite of regulations for the Northeast (NE) multispecies fishery through Amendment 16 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 16). This action updated status determination criteria for all regulated NE multispecies or ocean pout stocks; adopted rebuilding programs for NE multispecies stocks newly classified as being overfished and subject to overfishing; revised management measures, including significant revisions to the sector management measures, necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of increased effort controls. It also implemented new requirements under Amendment 16 for establishing acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs), and accountability measures (AMs) for each stock managed under the FMP, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    Revisions

    This revision incorporates a number of recent changes related to regulatory actions. Framework Adjustment 48 to the FMP (78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013) proposed to exempt sector vessels targeting monkfish from the additional at-sea monitoring coverage necessary to monitor groundfish catch. This measure was intended to allocate limited at-sea monitoring resources to monitor those trips that catch the most groundfish. To implement this measure, NMFS added a question to both the pre-trip notification and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program notification to allow fishermen to indicate what fishery they intend to participate in. This change allowed NMFS to identify trips that may qualify for this exemption, in order to deploy observers and at-sea monitors appropriately to achieve the coverage levels required by the FMP. Framework 48 also eliminated the dockside monitoring program established under Amendment 16 because NMFS determined dealer reporting combined with dockside intercepts by enforcement personnel are sufficient to ensure reliable landings data. Elimination of the dockside monitoring program was not included in the applicable non-substantive change request and thus this change will be included in the revision/extension.

    As part of Framework Adjustment 53 to the FMP (80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015), NMFS implemented a requirement that vessels that declare trips into the Gulf of Maine Broad Stock Area and any other broad stock area (i.e., Georges Bank or Southern New England) on the same trip submit a daily catch report via vessel monitoring system (VMS). We determined the daily VMS trip reports were necessary to ensure accurate apportionment of catch and help enforcement efforts. This requirement was approved temporarily through emergency PRA approval. We are proposing to permanently adjust this information collection to include this reporting requirement.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually, on occasion, weekly, daily and as requested.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26760 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0100] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Security Agency/Central Security Service proposes to alter a system of records notice GNSA 18, entitled “Operations Records.” This system is used to maintain records on foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and information assurance/cybersecurity matters relating to the missions of the National Security Agency. The National Security Agency does not collect such records for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging individuals based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before November 20, 2015. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Director, Civil Liberties and Privacy, Rebecca Richards, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Civil Liberties and Privacy Office, Suite 6310, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. Meade, Maryland, 20755.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on October 15, 2015 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. GNSA 18 System name:

    Operations Records (November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74019)

    Changes: Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals identified in foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or information assurance/cybersecurity reports and supportive materials, including individuals involved in matters of foreign intelligence interest, information assurance/cybersecurity interest, the compromise of classified information, or terrorism.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records may consist of any type of information acquired or maintained about an individual as NSA pursues its lawfully authorized missions, including but not limited to: an individual's name; Social Security Number (SSN); employee identification number; administrative information; biographic information when associated with an individual, such as phone number and email address; intelligence requirements; foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and information assurance/cybersecurity analysis and reporting; operational records; articles, public-source data, and other published information on individuals and events of interest to NSA/CSS; actual or purported compromises of classified intelligence; countermeasures in connection therewith; and identification of classified source documents and distribution thereof.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “National Security Agency Act of 1959, as amended (Pub. L. 86-36) (codified at 50 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.); the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended (Pub. L. 95-511) (codified at 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); 44 U.S.C. 3541-3549, Federal Information Security Management (FISMA); E.O. 12333, as amended, United States intelligence activities; E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information; National Security Directive 42, National Policy for the Security of National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purposes:

    Delete entry and replace with “To maintain records on foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and information assurance/cybersecurity matters relating to the missions of the National Security Agency.

    The National Security Agency does not collect such records for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging individuals based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To U.S. Government agencies, including state and local agencies, and in some circumstances, foreign government agencies or their representatives, and private entities to provide, and in order to obtain, foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, information assurance/cybersecurity information, and other information, in accordance with applicable law and policy. The National Security Agency does not collect or provide such records to afford a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. business sectors commercially.

    To U.S. Government officials regarding compromises of classified information including the document(s) apparently compromised, implications of disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, investigative data on compromises, and statistical and substantive analysis of the data.

    To any U.S. Government or foreign government organization in order to facilitate any security, employment, detail, liaison, or contractual decision by any U.S. Government organization.

    To the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Intelligence Oversight Board, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and any successor organizations, when requested by those entities, or when NSA/CSS determines that disclosure will assist in oversight functions.

    Records may further be disclosed to agencies involved in the protection of intelligence sources and methods to facilitate such protection and to support intelligence analysis and reporting.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the NSA/CSS compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information may be retrieved by any unique identifier or other criteria, to include an individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), and/or employee identification number.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Buildings are secured by a series of guarded pedestrian gates and checkpoints. Access to facilities is limited to security-cleared personnel and escorted visitors only. Within the facilities themselves, access to paper records and computer printouts are controlled by limited-access facilities and lockable containers. Access to electronic records is controlled by computer password protection and those who are cleared on a need to know basis in the performance of their duties.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “SIGINT Operational Data: Temporary, review annually for destruction.

    SIGINT Collection Records: Temporary, close inactive files annually and transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center. Review every 5 years for destruction.

    SIGINT Analysis Information and Records: Permanent, transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center when 5 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives after 20 years, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 25 years old.

    SIGINT Product: Permanent, transfer to NSA/CSS Records Center when 5 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives after 20 years, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 50 years old.

    Counterintelligence Records: Permanent, transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center when 3 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives when 20 years old, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 25 years old.

    Information Assurance and Communication Security data: Temporary, review every year for destruction.

    Information Assurance and Communications Security Monitoring Reports: Permanent, transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center when 5 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives when 20 years old, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 25 years old.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals themselves; U.S. agencies and organizations; media, including periodicals, newspapers, and broadcast transcripts; public and classified sources; intelligence source documents; investigative reports; and correspondence.”

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 13526, as implemented by DoDM 5200.1, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).

    Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. NOTE: When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.

    Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

    An exemption rule for this record system has been promulgated according to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 322. For additional information contact the system manager.”

    GNSA 18 System name:

    Operations Records.

    System location:

    National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Individuals identified in foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or information assurance/cybersecurity reports and supportive materials, including individuals involved in matters of foreign intelligence interest, information assurance/cybersecurity interest, the compromise of classified information, or terrorism.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Records may consist of any type of information acquired or maintained about an individual as NSA pursues its lawfully authorized missions, including but not limited to: An individual's name; Social Security Number (SSN); employee identification number; administrative information; biographic information when associated with an individual, such as phone number and email address; intelligence requirements; foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and information assurance/cybersecurity analysis and reporting; operational records; articles, public-source data, and other published information on individuals and events of interest to NSA/CSS; actual or purported compromises of classified intelligence; countermeasures in connection therewith; and identification of classified source documents and distribution thereof.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    National Security Agency Act of 1959, as amended (Pub. L. 86-36) (codified at 50 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.); the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended (Pub. L. 95-511) (codified at 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); 44 U.S.C. 3541-3549, Federal Information Security Management (FISMA); E.O. 12333, as amended, United States intelligence activities; E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information; National Security Directive 42, National Policy for the Security of National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    To maintain records on foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and information assurance/cybersecurity matters relating to the missions of the National Security Agency.

    The National Security Agency does not collect such records for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging individuals based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To U.S. Government agencies, including state and local agencies, and in some circumstances, foreign government agencies or their representatives, and private entities to provide, and in order to obtain, foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, information assurance/cybersecurity information, and other information, in accordance with applicable law and policy. The National Security Agency does not collect or provide such records to afford a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. business sectors commercially.

    To U.S. Government officials regarding compromises of classified information including the document(s) apparently compromised, implications of disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, investigative data on compromises, and statistical and substantive analysis of the data.

    To any U.S. Government or foreign government organization in order to facilitate any security, employment, detail, liaison, or contractual decision by any U.S. Government organization.

    To the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Intelligence Oversight Board, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and any successor organizations, when requested by those entities, or when NSA/CSS determines that disclosure will assist in oversight functions.

    Records may further be disclosed to agencies involved in the protection of intelligence sources and methods to facilitate such protection and to support intelligence analysis and reporting.

    The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' published at the beginning of the NSA/CSS' compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Information may be retrieved by any unique identifier or other criteria, to include an individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), and/or employee identification number.

    Safeguards:

    Buildings are secured by a series of guarded pedestrian gates and checkpoints. Access to facilities is limited to security-cleared personnel and escorted visitors only. Within the facilities themselves, access to paper records and computer printouts are controlled by limited-access facilities and lockable containers. Access to electronic records is controlled by computer password protection and those who are cleared on a need to know basis in the performance of their duties.”

    Retention and disposal:

    SIGINT Operational Data: Temporary, review annually for destruction.

    SIGINT Collection Records: Temporary, close inactive files annually and transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center. Review every 5 years for destruction.

    SIGINT Analysis Information and Records: Permanent, transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center when 5 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives after 20 years, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 25 years old.

    SIGINT Product: Permanent, transfer to NSA/CSS Records Center when 5 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives after 20 years, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 50 years old.

    Counterintelligence Records: Permanent, transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center when 3 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives when 20 years old, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 25 years old.

    Information Assurance and Communication Security data: Temporary, review every year for destruction.

    Information Assurance and Communications Security Monitoring Reports: Permanent, transfer to the NSA/CSS Records Center when 5 years old, transfer to the NSA/CSS Archives when 20 years old, and transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration when 25 years old.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Director, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248.

    Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, address and telephone number.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248.

    Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, address and telephone number.

    Contesting record procedures:

    The NSA/CSS rules for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations are published at 32 CFR part 322 or may be obtained by written request addressed to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248.

    Record source categories:

    Individuals themselves; U.S. agencies and organizations; media, including periodicals, newspapers, and broadcast transcripts; public and classified sources; intelligence source documents; investigative reports; and correspondence.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 13526, as implemented by DoDM 5200.1, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).

    Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. NOTE: When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.

    Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

    An exemption rule for this record system has been promulgated according to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 322. For additional information contact the system manager.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26738 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended information collection 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before December 21, 2015. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Sandra Dentinger, AU-70, Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, by fax at 301-903-2194 or by email at [email protected], or information about the collection instruments may be obtained at http://energy.gov/ehss/information-collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the person listed above in ADDRESSES.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information collection request contains the following: (1) OMB No: 1910-0300; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Environment, Safety and Health; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: The collections are used by DOE to exercise management oversight and control over its contractors in the ways in which the DOE contractors provide goods and services for DOE organizations and activities in accordance with the terms of their contract(s); the applicable statutory, regulatory and mission support requirements of the Department. The collections are: Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS); Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS); Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS); Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS); Annual Fire Protection Summary Application; Safety Basis Information System; and Lessons Learned System; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,004; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 79,634; (7) Response Obligation: Required, except for Noncompliance Tracking System (see Statutory Authority section below); (8) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 41,733; (9) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 641 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7251, and the following additional authorities:

    Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS): DOE Order 231.1B (June 27, 2011). Occurrence Reporting and Processing System (ORPS): DOE Order 232.2 (Admin Chg 1, March 12, 2014). Noncompliance Tracking System (NTS): 10 CFR part 820; 10 CFR part 851. Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS): 10 CFR part 835; DOE Order 231.1B (June 27, 2011). Annual Fire Protection Summary Application: DOE Order 231.1B (June 27, 2011). Safety Basis Information System: 10 CFR part 830; DOE Order 231.1B (June 27, 2011). Lessons Learned System: DOE Order 210.2A (April 8, 2011). Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2015. Stephanie K. Martin, Acting Director, Office of Resource Management, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26744 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford AGENCY:

    Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting: Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2015, a notice of an open meeting for the Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The notice is being corrected to add an additional date to the meeting. Agenda items will stay the same.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 13, 2015, in FR DOC. 2015-25982, on pages 61402 and 61403, please make the following corrections:

    In the DATES heading, third column, first paragraph, second line, please add, “Thursday, November 5, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.”

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26742 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-63-000] Seville Solar Two LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Seville Solar Two LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 3, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26714 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. TS15-3-000] City of Rochester, Minnesota Board of Public Utilities; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 25, 2015, pursuant to section 358.1(d) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission),1 the City of Rochester, Minnesota Board of Public Utilities filed a motion requesting that the Commission waive the Standards of Conduct requirements that may apply to RPU under Part 358 of the Commission's regulations 2 and Order Nos. 717,3 888,4 889,5 and 2004.6 RPU meets the definition of a small utility in that it sells less than 4 million MWh of electricity annually, thus qualifying for the requested waiver.

    1 18 CFR 359.1(d) (2015).

    2 18 CFR part 358.

    3Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,297, order on reh'g, Order No. 717-B, 129 FERC ¶ 61,123 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-C, 131 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2010).

    4Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048, order on reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002) (Order No. 888).

    5Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 (1996). Order on reh'g Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,049 (1997), reh'g denied, Order No. 889-B. 81 FERC ¶ 61,253 (1997).

    6 Standard of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 2004, 68 FR 69,134 (Dec. 11. 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31, 155 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-A, 69 FR 23,562 (Apr. 29, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,161 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-B, 69 FR 48,371 (Aug. 10, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31, 166 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-C, 70 FR 284 (Jan. 4, 2005), FERC Stat. & Regs. 31, 172 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC 61,320 (2005), vacated in part sub nom, Nat'l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 5, 2015.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26730 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-64-000] Tallbear Seville LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Tallbear Seville LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 3, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26715 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-13-000.

    Applicants: Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and Expedited Consideration of Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5342.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-76-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OA Schedule 1 and OATT Att K-Appx RE Offer Caps to be effective 12/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5293.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-77-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Electric Power Service Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits Interconnection Agreement No. 4247 among AEP Indiana and NIPSC to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5315.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-78-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-14_SA 2856 MidAmerican Energy Company-Ida Grove Wind Energy GIA (J411) to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5317.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-79-000.

    Applicants: New Dominion Energy Cooperative.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation to be effective 12/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5319.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-80-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Pennsylvania Electric Company, West Penn Power Company, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company et al. Filing of New Service Agreements to be effective 12/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5320.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-81-000.

    Applicants: Huntley Power LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Unexecuted Cost-of-Service Agreement to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5006.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-82-000.

    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Original Volume No. 3 of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5346.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-83-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA Service Agreement No. 4260, Queue No. AB1-022 to be effective 9/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-84-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-15_Add Consumers to Attachment FF-4 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26711 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-10-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-732); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-732, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs: Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 45214, 7/29/2015) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-732 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0245, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-4718.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-10-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-732, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs: Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0245.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-732 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: 18 CFR part 42 provides the reporting requirements of FERC-732 as they pertain to long-term transmission rights. To implement section 1233 1 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),2 the Commission requires each transmission organization that is a public utility with one or more organized electricity markets to make available long-term firm transmission rights that satisfy each of the Commission's guidelines.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824 et al.

    2 Added new section 217 (16 U.S.C. 824Q) to the Federal Power Act (FPA).

    The FERC-732 regulations require that transmission organizations (that are public utilities with one or more organized electricity markets) choose one of two ways to file:

    • File tariff sheets making long-term firm transmission rights available that are consistent with each of the guidelines established by FERC

    • File an explanation describing how their existing tariffs already provide long-term firm transmission rights that are consistent with the guidelines.

    Additionally, the Commission requires each transmission organization to make its transmission planning and expansion procedures and plans available to the public.

    FERC-732 enables the Commission to exercise its wholesale electric rate and electric power transmission oversight and enforcement responsibilities in accordance with the FPA, the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act), and EPAct 2005.

    Type of Respondents: Public utility with one or more organized electricity markets.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 3 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    3 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    4 The cost figure is the 2015 FERC average salary plus benefits ($149,489/year or $72/hour). FERC staff estimates that industry costs for salary plus benefits are similar to Commission costs.

    FERC-732, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs: Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden & cost
  • per response 4
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) Public Utility with One or More Organized Electricity Markets 1 1 1 1,180
  • $84,960
  • 1,180
  • $84,960
  • $84,960

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26725 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP15-115-000 10-5-15 Anne Kulla. Exempt: 1. CP15-93-000 9-8-15 US Representative Tim Murphy. 2. CP15-132-000 9-17-15 FERC Staff.1 3. CP09-6-001, CP09-7-001, CP13-507-000 9-22-15 Members of Congress.2 4. P-10808-000 9-23-15 US Representative John Moolenaar. 5. CP15-138-000 9-24-15 Lebanon County Commissioners.3 6. CP09-6-001, CP09-7-001, CP13-507-000 9-25-15 Members of Congress.4 7. CP15-138-000 9-25-15 US Representative Lou Barletta. 8. CP14-96-000 9-28-15 New York Senator State Brad Hoylman. 9. CP14-96-000, CP14-497-000 10-5-15 Tompkins County Legislature, NY. 10. CP15-517-000 10-6-15 FERC Staff.5 11. CP09-6-001, CP09-7-001 10-6-15 FERC Staff.6 1 Summary of 8-27-15 Inter-agency conference communication regarding the Summerlin Pipe Replacement Project. 2 U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeffrey A. Merkley and Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici. 3 William E. Ames, Robert J. Phillips, and Jo Ellen Litz. 4 US Senators Ron Wyden and Jeffrey A. Merkley and Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici. 5 Minutes from 9-25-15 conference call with Gulf South Pipeline, LP. 6 Letters from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office dated 9-16-15 and 9-18-2015. Dated: October 8, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26702 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD16-1-000] Mojave Water Agency; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On October 13, 2015, the Mojave Water Agency filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Deep Creek Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 800 kilowatts (kW) and would be located at the Mojave Water Agency's existing Deep Creek Recharge Facility. The project would be located near the City of Apple Valley in San Bernardino County, California.

    Applicant Contact: Darrell Reynolds, Mojave Water Agency, 13846 Conference Center Drive, Apple Valley, CA 92307, Phone No. (760) 946-7023.

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No. (202) 502-6062, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) a proposed 44-foot-long by 24-inch-diameter pipe running parallel to the pressure reducing valve, off of the existing 48-inch-diameter main pipeline; (2) a proposed 1,428 square foot powerhouse containing one generating unit with an installed capacity of 800 kW; (3) a proposed 30-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter discharge pipe to the existing 48-inch-diameter main pipeline; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 5,424 megawatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions To Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD16-1-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26723 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-205-000.

    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Supplement to September 11, 2015 Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Bishop Hill Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5337.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1809-001.

    Applicants: ATX Southwest, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing with Pro Forma Service Agreement of ATX Southwest, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5339.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2620-000.

    Applicants: Little Elk Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Little Elk Wind Project, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 9/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150904-5331.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2620-000.

    Applicants: Little Elk Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to September 4, 2015 Little Elk Wind Project, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5331.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-40-000.

    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of Jersey Central Power & Light Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5295.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-42-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Power Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of Pennsylvania Power Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5294.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-43-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of Pennsylvania Electric Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5293.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-44-000.

    Applicants: Metropolitan Edison Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of Metropolitan Edison Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5292.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-45-000.

    Applicants: West Penn Power Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of West Penn Power Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5290.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-46-000.

    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of Monongahela Power Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5288.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-47-000.

    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of The Potomac Edison Power Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5287.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-48-000.

    Applicants: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.

    Description: Amendment to July 31, 2015 Application of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5284.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26704 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-72-000] San Gorgonio Westwinds II—Windustries, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of San Gorgonio Westwinds II—Windustries, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 3, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26716 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-11-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-914); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection (FERC-914, Cogeneration and Small Power Production—Tariff Filings) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 46257, 8/4/2015) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-914 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0231, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-4718.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-11-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-914, Cogeneration and Small Power Production—Tariff Filings.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0231

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-914 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: Section 205(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires that every public utility have all of its jurisdictional rates and tariffs on file with the Commission and make them available for public inspection, within such time and in such form as the Commission may designate. Section 205(d) of the FPA requires that every public utility must provide notice to the Commission and the public of any changes to its jurisdictional rates and tariffs, file such changes with the Commission, and make them available for public inspection, in such manner as directed by the Commission. In addition, FPA section 206 requires the Commission, upon complaint or its own motion, to modify existing rates or services that are found to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential. FPA section 207 requires the Commission upon complaint by a state commission and a finding of insufficient interstate service, to order the rendering of adequate interstate service by public utilities, the rates for which would be filed in accordance with FPA sections 205 and 206.

    In Orders Nos. 671 and 671-A 1 , the Commission revised its regulations that govern qualifying small power production and cogeneration facilities. Among other things, the Commission eliminated certain exemptions from rate regulation that were previously available to qualifying facilities (QFs). New qualifying facilities may need to make tariff filings if they do not meet the new exemption requirements.

    1Revised Regulations Governing Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities, Order No. 671, 71 FR 7852 (2/15/2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,203 (2006); and Revised Regulations Governing Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities, Order 671-A, 71 FR 30585 (5/30/2006), in Docket No. RM05-36.

    FERC implemented the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to establish criteria for new qualifying cogeneration facilities by: (1) Amending the exemptions available to qualifying facilities from the FPA and from PUHCA [resulting in the burden imposed by FERC-914, the subject of this statement]; (2) ensuring that these facilities are using their thermal output in a productive and beneficial manner; that the electrical, thermal, chemical and mechanical output of new qualifying cogeneration facilities is used fundamentally for industrial, commercial, residential or industrial purposes; and there is continuing progress in the development of efficient electric energy generating technology; (3) amending the FERC Form 556 2 to reflect the criteria for new qualifying cogeneration facilities; and (4) eliminating ownership limitations for qualifying cogeneration and small power production facilities. The Commission satisfied the statutory mandate and its continuing obligation to review its policies encouraging cogeneration and small power production, energy conservation, efficient use of facilities and resources by electric utilities, and equitable rates for energy customers.

    2 The FERC-556 is cleared separately as OMB Control No. 1902-0075 and is not a subject of this notice.

    Type of Respondents: New qualifying facilities and small power producers that do not meet Commission exemption criteria.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:3 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    3 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-914: Cogeneration and Small Power Production—Tariff Filings Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden & cost per response 4
  • Total annual burden hours & total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • Respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) FPA Section 205 Filings 35 1 35 183
  • $13,176
  • 6,405
  • $461,160
  • $13,176
    Electric Quarterly Reports (initial) 0 0 0 230
  • $16,560
  • 0
  • $0
  • $0
    Electric Quarterly Reports (later) 35 4 140 6
  • $432
  • 840
  • $60,480
  • $1,728
    Change of Status 10 1 10 3
  • $216
  • 30
  • $2,160
  • $216
    TOTAL 185 7,725 $523,800 $15,120

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    4 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72.00 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the FERC average salary of $149,489/year.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26727 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14701-000] Empire State Hydro 301, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 20, 2015, Empire State Hydro 301, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Diamond Mills Hydroelectric Project (Diamond Mills Project or project) to be located at the existing Diamond Mills Dam on Esopus Creek in Saugerties, Ulster County, New York. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An 140-acre impoundment with a normal volume of 826 acre-feet; (2) an existing 350-foot-long, 32-foot-high concrete gravity dam with a spillway length of 340 feet; (3) an existing 30-foot-long, 9-foot-high auxiliary spillway; (4) an existing 10-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter penstock; (5) two new 750-kilowatt turbines; (6) a new 50-foot-long, 30-foot-wide powerhouse; (7) a new 300-foot-long, 12.7-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Diamond Mills Project would be 5,300 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark Boumansour, Empire State Hydro 301, LLC, c/o Gravity Renewables, Inc., 1401 Walnut Street, Suite 220, Boulder, CO 80302; phone: (303) 440-3378.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 502-6336.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14701-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14701) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26729 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-6-000.

    Applicants: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC, Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC, Noble Great Plains Windpark, LLC, Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and Expedited Consideration of Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-7-000.

    Applicants: Astoria Generating Company, L.P., Crete Energy Venture, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Astoria Generating Company, L.P., et al.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2952-005.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-10-08_SSR Cost Allocation Compliance Filing to be effective 4/3/2014.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2579-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2015-10-08_SA 2632 Amendment to Facilities Charge Template to be effective 9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-746-002.

    Applicants: RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Reactive Refund Report to be effective 10/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-36-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-8_PSC-WAPA-Con Fac Agrmt-359-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 2/24/2014.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-37-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment AE Revisions Regarding MWP Formulas for Reg-Up and Reg-Down Mileage to be effective 10/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-38-000.

    Applicants: Kingbird Solar A, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities and Common Ownership Agreements and Request for Waivers to be effective 10/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-39-000.

    Applicants: Kingbird Solar B, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities and Common Ownership Agreements and Request for Waivers to be effective 10/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 8, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26703 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-32-000.

    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report of Flow Through filed 10-6-15.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-33-000.

    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 1Line Agreement Filing to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26708 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-61-000] Seville Solar One LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization October 14, 2015.

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Seville Solar One LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 3, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26710 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-10-000.

    Applicants: Sandstone Solar LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG) Status of Sandstone Solar LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2507-005.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2015 Triennial Market Power Analysis of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5269.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1858-005; ER11-1859-004.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation, Montana Generation, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of NorthWestern Corporation and Montana Generation, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5275.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-73-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revising Schedule 12—Appdx & Appdx A on behalf of AEP—update company affiliate to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-74-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the CTOA on behalf of AEP to update its affiliate companies to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-75-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of IFA, Service Agreement No. 12, to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26707 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-10-000.

    Applicants: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Treatment.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-12-000.

    Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of Blue Sky West, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5766.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2615-000.

    Applicants: Goodwell Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to September 3, 2015 Goodwell Wind Project, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2728-001.

    Applicants: Maricopa West Solar PV, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2 Baseline—Amended Effective Date to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5736.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-69-000.

    Applicants: Southern Electric Generating Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SEGCO 2015 PBOP Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5698.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-70-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 20151013_MontiEPUIAUpdate to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5710.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-71-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Service Agreement No. 09-01804 (Termination) to be effective 10/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5737.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-72-000.

    Applicants: San Gorgonio Westwinds II—Windustries, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline New to be effective 11/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26706 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-11-000.

    Applicants: Greeley Energy Facility, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Greeley Energy Facility, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5592.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-6-000.

    Applicants: Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-7-000.

    Applicants: Los Vientos Windpower IV, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification as an Exempt Wholesale Generator of Los Vientos Windpower IV, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5387.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-8-000.

    Applicants: Los Vientos Windpower V, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification as an Exempt Wholesale Generator of Los Vientos Windpower V, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5443.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-9-000.

    Applicants: Yuma Cogeneration Associates.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Yuma Cogeneration Associates.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5695.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-518-005.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order 676-H Compliance Filing (Revised) to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5656.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2358-001.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing for Pending Record in DWR SA 275 (App C) to be effective 7/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2501-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2015-10-13_SA 2219 ATC-METC Transmission IA Resubmittal Amendment to be effective 7/1/2010.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5670.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2541-001.

    Applicants: Burgess Capital LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Revised Filing to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5385

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-47-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12_New Ulm-UnEXE T-L_0.0.0—Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-48-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12-PSC-WAPA-Wtrflw Agrmt-380-0.0.0—Filing to be effective 12/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-49-000

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12_MMPA Tm-1 Removal-3_0.2.0—Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-50-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12-PSC-TSGT-USA-379-0.0.0—Filing to be effective—9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-51-000.

    Applicants: Solar Star California XIX, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence Filing to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5510.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-52-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Commonwealth Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ComEd revises Attachment H-13 to add certain wholesale distribution charges to be effective 10/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5514.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-53-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended LGIA North Rosamond Solar, LLC to be effective 10/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5523.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-55-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended LGIA Willow Springs Solar, LLC to be effective 10/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5524.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-56-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-13_Hurdle Rate Removal Filing to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5526.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-60-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4262; Queue X3-015 (ISA) to be effective 9/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5536.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-61-000.

    Applicants: Seville Solar One LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff and Application to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5543.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-62-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised Interconnection Service Agreement No. 3340, Queue No. AA2-052 to be effective 9/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5554.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-63-000.

    Applicants: Seville Solar Two, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff and Application to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5557.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-64-000.

    Applicants: Tallbear Seville LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff and Application to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5563.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-65-000.

    Applicants: Seville Solar One LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SFA and SLA Filing to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5584.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-66-000.

    Applicants: Seville Solar Two, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence in SFA to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5587.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-67-000.

    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015 PBOP Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5680.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-68-000.

    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PBOP 2015 Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5684.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26705 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-44-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: J. Aron & Company Negotiated Rate to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5697.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-45-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Encana 37663 to BP 45313) to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-46-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (QEP 37657 to BP 45322) to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-47-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (FPL 41618 to Tenaska 45219) to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-48-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Atlanta 8438 to various eff 10-1-15) to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 14, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26713 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-501-000.

    Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Under Docket ER15-501 to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5282.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-85-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-15_SA 2853 Certificate of Concurrence IMTCO-NIPSCO Agreement to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-86-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 217 Exhibit B.SGR and Exhibit D to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-87-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of WAPA-BH Windstar Boundary Meter Install Agmt to be effective 12/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-88-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-15 Retail Choice Data Submission to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5281.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26712 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-32-000.

    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report of Flow Through filed 10-6-15.

    Filed Date: 10/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20151006-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-33-000.

    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 1Line Agreement Filing to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26728 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR16-1-000.

    Applicants: Mid Continent Market Center, L.L.C.

    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): NGPA 311 Rate Certification to be effective 10/1/2015; Filing Type: 1300.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/15.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1494-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC.

    Description: Cost and Revenue Study of Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20151005-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-34-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to Amend LER 5680's Attachment A_10_7_15 to be effective 10/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-35-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing East Side Expansion Implementation, CP14-17 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-36-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Report Detailing 2014 Surcharge of Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-37-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated & Non-Conforming Service Agmt ESE—NJNG.SJGas.NJNG to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-38-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/12/15 Negotiated Rates—Trafigura Trading LLC (RTS) 7445-08 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-39-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/12/15 Negotiated Rates—MMGS, Inc. (RTS) 7625-02 & -03 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-40-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/12/15 Negotiated Rates—Macquarie Energy LLC (RTS) 4090-09 & -10 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-41-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/12/15 Negotiated Rates—Emera Energy Services, Inc. (RTS) 2715-24 & -25 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5062.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-42-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/12/15 Negotiatied Rates—DTE Energy Trading, Inc. (RTS) 1830-10 & -11 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-43-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/12/15 Negotiated Rates—Cargill Incorporated (RTS) 3085-24 & -25 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20151013-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1269-001.

    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Gulf Shore Energy—Change of Ownership Filing—Amendment to be effective 10/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-35-001.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing East Side Implementation, CP14-7 Errata to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20151009-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26709 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC06-129-006.

    Applicants: Capital Research and Management Company, Capital Group International, Inc.

    Description: Request for Amended Order Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Capital Research and Management Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-215-000.

    Applicants: RPA Energy, Inc.

    Description: Supplement to September 29, 2015 Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for a Shortened Comment Period of RPA Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-5-000.

    Applicants: Seville Solar Two, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Seville Solar Two, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-040; ER14-630-017; ER10-2319-032; ER10-2317-032; ER13-1351-014; ER10-2330-039.

    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, AlphaGen Power LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Florida Power Development LLC, Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the J.P. Morgan Sellers.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4380-005; ER13-1562-004; ER13-1641-002; ER10-2434-006; ER10-2467-006; ER10-2488-012; ER12-1931-006; ER15-1045-001;ER10-2504-007; ER12-610-007; ER13-338-006;ER12-2037-006; ER12-2314-005; ER10-2436-006;ER11-4381-005.

    Applicants: Bellevue Solar, LLC, Catalina Solar Lessee, LLC, Chestnut Flats Lessee, LLC, Fenton Power Partners I, LLC, Hoosier Wind Project, LLC, Oasis Power Partners, LLC, Pacific Wind Lessee, LLC, Pilot Hill Wind, LLC, Shiloh Wind Project 2, LLC, Shiloh III Lessee, LLC, Shiloh IV Lessee, LLC, Spearville 3, LLC, Spinning Spur Wind LLC, Wapsipinicon Wind Project, LLC, Yamhill Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the EDF-RE MBR Companies.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5249.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2426-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Amendment to August 12, 2015 Proposed Reactive Power Revenue Requirements of Northern Indiana Public Service Company for twelve generating facilities located in the MISO pricing zone under ER15-2426.

    Filed Date: 10/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20151007-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-34-000.

    Applicants: Harborside Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 11/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-35-000.

    Applicants: Brown's Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 11/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20151008-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 8, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26701 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER10-2302-005] Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable; Public Service Company of New Mexico, Order Accepting Notice of Change in Status, Rejecting, Without Prejudice, Request for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Providing Clarification on Submitting Delivered Price Test Analyses and Simultaneous Transmission Import Limit Studies

    1. In this order, we accept the notice of change in status filed by Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) to report a transaction in which it purchased the interests in Delta Person, Limited Partnership (Delta Person).1 Also in this order, we reject, without prejudice, PNM's request for market-based rate authority in the PNM balancing authority area and we reject, without prejudice, the simultaneous transmission import limit (SIL) values submitted by PNM for the PNM balancing authority area. We take this opportunity to remind applicants seeking initial market-based rate authority or seeking to retain such authority of the type of information and analysis that is useful and appropriate for our consideration of a Delivered Price Test (DPT) and what is not. We are providing this information not only to PNM but to industry broadly with respect to several issues that arose in our review of the DPT analysis and SIL study prepared by PNM. These issues, as with others, are recurring across a myriad of applicants. Our goal in providing this clarification is to promote compliance with the Commission's regulations and policies in an effort to more timely process requests for market-based rate authorization and reduce delay.

    1 The related acquisition of jurisdictional facilities was authorized by the Commission in Delta Person, Limited Partnership, 142 FERC ¶ 62,155 (2013).

    I. Background

    2. On August 18, 2014, as amended on December 17, 2014 and February 18, 2015,2 PNM filed a notice of change in status notifying the Commission that, effective July 17, 2014, PNM purchased the interests in Delta Person, the owner of a 132 megawatt (MW) gas-fired generating facility located in the PNM balancing authority area. PNM states that the acquisition does not affect PNM's horizontal market power because, prior to the acquisition, PNM purchased the full output of the facility under a long-term contract with Delta Person and, as such, was already deemed to control the output of that facility.3

    2 For purposes of this order, the February 18, 2015 amendment will be referred to as “Response to the Data Request.”

    3 August 18, 2014 Filing at 1.

    3. Additionally, PNM requests market-based rate authorization in the PNM balancing authority area.4 PNM states that the market characteristics in the PNM balancing authority area have changed since PNM relinquished its market-based rate authority in 2010 and PNM is therefore seeking to reestablish its market-based rate authority in that balancing authority area.5

    4 PNM states that its tariff reflects that it relinquished its market-based rate authority in the PNM and El Paso Electric Company (El Paso Electric) balancing authority areas. Id. at 3 (citing Public Service Company of New Mexico, Docket No. ER96-1551-022 (Oct. 26, 2010) (delegated letter order)). PNM states that it only seeks to reestablish its market-based rate authority in the PNM balancing authority area and not in the El Paso Electric balancing authority area. Id. at 2 n.4.

    5Id. at 4.

    4. PNM included an updated market power analysis with its August 18, 2014 Filing. PNM states that it passes the pivotal supplier screen and the wholesale market share screen in the summer season; however, PNM represents that it fails the wholesale market share screen in the winter, fall, and spring seasons. PNM notes that the failure of the indicative screens creates a rebuttable presumption of horizontal market power. However, PNM states it has rebutted that presumption by demonstrating that PNM passes a DPT analysis for the PNM balancing authority area.6

    6 On December 17, 2014, PNM submitted public versions of its DPT files, explaining that it initially submitted numerous electronic files related to the DPT analysis on a confidential basis.

    5. Additionally, PNM submitted historical evidence related to a request for proposal (RFP) issued by the City of Gallup, New Mexico, representing that PNM was not selected as the winner and that the results of the RFP should be considered as alternative evidence to rebut the presumption that PNM may have market power in the PNM balancing authority area.7

    7Id. at 12-13.

    6. On December 19, 2014, the Director of the Division of Electric Power Regulation—West requested additional information from PNM with regard to the DPT analysis and SIL study (Data Request).8 On February 18, 2015, PNM submitted a revised DPT analysis and an additional SIL sensitivity analysis, with revised Submittal 1 and Submittal 2 results, in response to the request for additional information (Response to the Data Request).

    8Public Service Company of New Mexico, Docket No. ER10-2302-005 (Dec. 19, 2014) (delegated letter order). We note that on January 21, 2015, PNM filed a motion for an extension of time to file its Response to the Data Request, which was granted. See Notice of Extension of Time, Docket No. ER10-2302-005 (Jan. 27, 2015).

    II. Notice of Filings

    7. Notice of PNM's August 18, 2014 filing, as amended on December 17, 2014 and on February 18, 2015, was published in the Federal Register,9 with interventions and protests due on or before March 11, 2015. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Navopache) filed a timely motion to intervene.

    9 79 FR 50,642; 79 FR 78,081 (2014); 80 FR 10,472 (2015).

    III. Discussion A. Procedural Matters

    8. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2015), Navopache's timely, unopposed motion to intervene serves to make it a party to this proceeding.

    B. Substantive Matters

    9. We accept PNM's notice of change in status filing. However, as discussed below, we reject, without prejudice, PNM's request for market-based rate authority in the PNM balancing authority area and PNM's related SIL study. We find that PNM has failed to rebut the presumption of horizontal market power in the PNM balancing authority area, and therefore, has not supported its request for market-based rate authority in the PNM balancing authority area. Also, as discussed below, we take this opportunity to identify deficiencies in PNM's DPT analysis and provide general clarification regarding DPT analyses and SIL studies. We note that our efforts to provide such clarification in this order are hampered by the fact that PNM's most recent February 18, 2015 DPT analysis and SIL submittals were all filed as non-public.10 Thus, we often cite to earlier public versions of filings instead of the most recent non-public versions. However, unless otherwise noted, the discussion is applicable to the most recent non-public version as well.

    10 We encourage filers to submit as much information as possible as public and only to claim confidential treatment for information that is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Filers must follow the requirements in 18 CFR 388.112 (2015) when submitting requests for privileged treatment of filings.

    C. Market-Based Rate Authorization

    10. The Commission allows power sales at market-based rates if the seller and its affiliates do not have, or have adequately mitigated, horizontal and vertical market power.11 An applicant that fails one or more of the indicative screens is provided with several procedural options including the right to challenge the market power presumption by submitting a DPT analysis.12 As discussed in the body of this order, PNM's DPT analysis includes inaccurate data and modeling errors and is inconsistent with the Commission's regulations. The deficiencies pertain to the following: (i) Data integrity; (ii) identification of potential supply; (iii) calculation of variable costs; (iv) accounting for power purchase agreements; (v) calculation of transmission rates; (vi) calculation of available economic capacity (AEC); (vii) use of historical transaction data to corroborate results; and (viii) preparation of the SIL study.

    11See Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252, at PP 62, 399, 408, 440, clarified, 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ¶ 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,285 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,305 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 26 (2012).

    12 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 63.

    1. Horizontal Market Power

    11. The Commission adopted two indicative screens for assessing horizontal market power: the pivotal supplier screen and the wholesale market share screen.13 The Commission has stated that passage of both screens establishes a rebuttable presumption that the applicant does not possess horizontal market power, while failure of either screen creates a rebuttable presumption that the applicant has horizontal market power.14

    13Id. P 62.

    14Id. PP 33, 62-63.

    12. PNM prepared the pivotal supplier and wholesale market share screens for the PNM balancing authority area, consistent with the requirements of Order No. 697.15 We have reviewed these and find that PNM passes the pivotal supplier screen and the wholesale market share screen in the summer season with a market share of 18.0 percent, but fails the wholesale market share screen in the other seasons with market shares ranging from 24.9 to 26.8 percent.16 As a result of failing the indicative screens in the fall, winter, and spring seasons, PNM submitted alternative evidence and performed a DPT analysis to rebut the presumption of horizontal market power in the PNM balancing authority area.

    15Id. PP 231-232.

    16 August 18, 2014 Filing, Exhibit No. JMC-3.

    13. As the Commission has previously explained, the DPT analysis identifies potential suppliers based on market prices, input costs, and transmission availability, and calculates each supplier's economic capacity (EC) 17 and AEC 18 for each season/load period.19 The results of the DPT can be used for pivotal supplier, market share and market concentration analyses.20 Under the DPT analysis, applicants must also calculate market concentration using the Hirschman-Herfindahl Index (HHI).21 An HHI of less than 2,500 in the relevant market for all seasons/load periods, in combination with a demonstration that the applicants are not pivotal and do not possess more than a 20 percent market share in any of the seasons/load periods, would constitute a showing of a lack of horizontal market power, absent compelling contrary evidence from interveners. A detailed description of the mechanics of the DPT analysis is provided in Order No. 697.22

    17 The EC of a supplier is defined as “the amount of generating capacity owned or controlled by a potential supplier with variable costs low enough that energy from such capacity could be economically delivered to the destination market.” See 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4)(i)(A) (2015).

    18 The Commission's regulations provide that AEC “means the amount of generating capacity meeting the definition of economic capacity less the amount of generating capacity needed to serve the potential supplier's native load commitments,” 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4)(i)(B) (2015).

    19 The seasons/load periods are as follows: super-peak, peak, and off-peak, for winter, shoulder, and summer periods and an additional highest super-peak for the summer.

    20See AEP Power Marketing, Inc., 107 FERC ¶ 61,018, at PP 106-108 (April 14 Order), order on reh'g, 108 FERC ¶ 61,026 (2004).

    21 The HHI is the sum of the squared market shares. For example, in a market with five equal size firms, each would have a 20 percent market share. For that market, HHI = (20)2 + (20)2 + (20)2 + (20)2 + (20)2 = 400 + 400 + 400 + 400 + 400 = 2,000.

    22 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at PP 104-117.

    14. As with the indicative screens, applicants and interveners may present evidence, such as historical sales and transmission data, which may be used to calculate market shares and market concentration and to refute or support the results of the DPT analysis. In Order No. 697, the Commission encouraged applicants to present the most complete analysis of competitive conditions in the market as the data allow.23

    23Id. PP 71, 111.

    15. PNM's DPT analysis for the PNM balancing authority area indicates that PNM is not pivotal in any season/load period using either the EC measure or the AEC measure.24 Using the AEC measure, PNM reports market shares below 20 percent in all seasons/load periods and HHIs below 2,500.25 However, using the EC measure, PNM reports market shares above 20 percent in all seasons/load periods and HHIs below 2,500.26

    24 August 18, 2014 Filing, Carey Aff. at 27, Table 4 (Delivered Price Test for the PNM BAA Destination Market Available Economic Capacity); Id., Carey Aff. at 30, Table 5 (Delivered Price Test for the PNM BAA Destination Market Economic Capacity). We note that PNM also submitted sensitivity analyses that separately analyzed what effect, if any, a 10 percent increase or decrease in market price would have on the results of its DPT analysis. Id., Carey Aff. at 30.

    25Id., Carey Aff. at 27, Table 4.

    26Id., Carey Aff. at 30, Table 5.

    a. Alternative Evidence—RFP

    16. PNM states that the Commission allows a seller to present alternative evidence to rebut the results of the indicative screens. PNM requests that the RFP results be considered as additional alternative evidence to rebut the presumption that PNM may have market power in the PNM balancing authority area.

    17. According to PNM, on September 26, 2013, the City of Gallup issued an RFP for long-term power supply and scheduling services for a minimum of five years. The RFP represents that the City of Gallup serves approximately 10,500 customers and averages approximately 215,000,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in annual sales provided from wholesale energy purchases of around 220,000,000 kWh bought from PNM and 15,000,000 kWh from Western Area Power Administration. PNM states that, as the City of Gallup's existing supplier, it responded to the RFP. PNM further states that the City of Gallup received bids from five suppliers. Further, PNM represents that it was not selected as the winner in the RFP and ranked third in the competitiveness of its bid. PNM states that Continental Divide Electric Cooperative was selected as the winning bidder, having submitted a bid that was significantly lower than those submitted by either PNM or the other bidders.

    18. PNM contends that the fact that there were a number of bidders in the RFP, several of whose bids were lower than the bid submitted by PNM, in and of itself, demonstrates that PNM lacks market power in the PNM balancing authority area. PNM further states that this alternative evidence is bolstered by the fact that a neighboring utility that maintains market-based rate authority in the PNM balancing authority area also underbid PNM, making it difficult to justify the notion that PNM has market power. Moreover, PNM states that the RFP is significant recent real-world evidence that corroborates the results of its DPT analysis demonstrating that PNM lacks market power in the PNM balancing authority area.

    Commission Determination

    19. Although PNM presents this RFP as alternative evidence to rebut the results of the indicative screens, we find that this alternative evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that PNM lacks market power in that balancing authority area. We do not believe that the City of Gallup's load is a sufficient proxy for the load PNM served during the study period.27 Further, the results of the RFP may simply reflect that there are competitors to PNM that can provide a small amount of long-term power supply and scheduling services for a minimum of five years less expensively than PNM. However, the Commission's analysis of horizontal market power includes other factors, such as uncommitted capacity and system operating conditions during various levels of load in a relevant geographic market, none of which is addressed by PNM's alternative evidence. Thus, we are unable to conclude from the RFP evidence that PNM lacks horizontal market power in the PNM balancing authority area. Further, PNM does not provide historical sales or transmission data to rebut the results of the indicative screens.28

    27 We note that the 215,000,000 kWh translates into approximately 25 MW of load at a 100 percent load factor (215,000,000 kWh ÷ 1,000 = 215,000 MWh; 215,000 MWh ÷ 8,760 hours in a year = 24.5 MW). A load factor of 60 percent would translate into approximately 41 MW of annual peak load. Either amount is significantly less than the 2,142 MW of retail requirements, wholesale load obligation plus off system sales that PNM served during the summer peak of 2013. See id., Carey Aff. at 11. It is also less than the 2,563 MW PNM balancing authority annual peak load. See id., Exhibit No. JMC-3 at 1.

    28 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 75.

    b. DPT Analysis

    20. In Order No. 697, the Commission provided the option for a seller to submit a DPT analysis when that seller fails an indicative screen.29

    29Id. P 105.

    21. The Commission, prior to Order No. 697, provided industry guidance concerning the DPT in the Merger Policy Statement.30 The Commission provided an overview of the definition of the product market studied by the DPT analysis, and specifically stated that a key part “in determining the size of the geographic market is to identify those suppliers that can compete to serve a given market or customer and how much of a competitive presence they are in the market. Alternative suppliers must be able to reach the market both economically and physically. There are two parts to this analysis. One is determining the economic capability of a supplier to reach a market. This is accomplished by a delivered price test. The second part evaluates the physical capability of a supplier to reach a market.”31

    30Inquiry Concerning the Commission's Merger Policy Under the Federal Power Act: Policy Statement, Order No. 592, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 (1996) (Merger Policy Statement), reconsideration denied, Order No. 592-A, 79 FERC ¶ 61,321 (1997).

    31Id. at 31,130.

    22. The first part of the product market analysis, that is, the calculation of all potential suppliers given the prevailing market price. The EC of a supplier is the amount of generating capacity owned or controlled by a potential supplier with variable costs low enough that energy from such capacity could be economically delivered to the destination market. The EC calculation can be described as follows.32

    32 We note that these steps are not an exhaustive list to perform a DPT analysis; however, these steps are provided as an illustration to discuss PNM's DPT analysis.

    23. The first step in calculating a potential supplier's EC is to calculate the variable cost of each unit.33 Commission regulations state that, at a minimum, these costs include variable operation and maintenance, including both fuel and non-fuel operation and maintenance, and environmental compliance. To the extent these costs are allocated among units at the same plant, allocation methods should be fully described.34 Any generation capacity acquired under long-term firm purchase contracts (i.e., contracts with a remaining commitment of more than one year) should be added to the potential supplier's generation capacity.35 In addition, the regulations provide that “other generating capacity may also be attributed to another supplier based on operational control criteria as deemed necessary, but the applicant must explain the reasons for doing so.” 36 The variable cost for contractual capacity acquired, or attributed to another supplier, should be calculated in the same way as generation owned or under the direct control of the supplier. Commission regulations also require that specific information on long-term purchase and sale data be submitted.37

    33Revised Filing Requirements Under Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations, Order No. 642, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,111, at 31,886 n.39 (2000), order on reh'g, Order No. 642-A, 94 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2001).

    34 18 CFR 33.3(d)(2)(i) (2015).

    35 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4)(i)(A) (2015) (specifying that the potential supplier's capacity is adjusted by subtracting capacity committed under long-term firm sales contracts and adding capacity acquired under long-term firm purchase contracts).

    36Id.

    37 18 CFR 33.3(d)(3) (2015) (“Long-term purchase and sales data. For each sale and purchase of capacity, the applicant must provide the following information: (i) Purchasing entity name; (ii) Selling entity name; (iii) Duration of the contract; (iv) Remaining contract term and any evergreen provisions; (v) Provisions regarding renewal of the contract; (vi) Priority or degree of interruptibility; (vii) FERC rate schedule number, if applicable; (viii) Quantity and price of capacity and/or energy purchased or sold under the contract; and (ix) Information on provisions of contracts which confer operational control over generation resources to the purchaser.”).

    24. The second step is to add to the estimate of the unit's variable generation cost any and all applicable transmission costs that a supplier would incur to deliver the energy into the study area. Commission regulations state that these costs include the maximum transmission rate in a transmission provider's tariff as well as the estimated cost of supplying energy losses.38 The costs of ancillary services incurred to deliver the competing energy into the study area should also be included.39 These costs should be accumulated beginning at the source of the generation and ending where the generation sinks in the study area.40

    38 18 CFR 33.3(d)(5)(i) and 33.3(d)(5)(iii)(H) (2015).

    39 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4) (2015) (“Perform delivered price test. For each destination market, the applicant must calculate the amount of relevant product a potential supplier could deliver to the destination market from owned or controlled capacity at a price, including applicable transmission prices, loss factors and ancillary services costs, that is no more than five (5) percent above the pre-transaction market clearing price in the destination market.” (emphasis added)).

    40 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 31,132 (“In contrast, a supplier that is three or four `wheels' away from the same buyer may be an economic supplier if the sum of the wheeling charges and the effect of losses is less than the difference between the decremental cost of the buyer and the price at which the supplier is willing to sell.” (emphasis added)).

    25. The final step in calculating economically competitive capacity is to determine whether the computed generation cost of a unit is price competitive in the study area. The supplier should compare the computed cost of a generating unit (including all aforementioned generation, transmission, and other costs), to the computed market price plus five (5) percent in the study area.41 Generation with a delivered cost that meets all of the above conditions is referred to as the EC of that unit.

    41 April 14 Order, 107 FERC ¶ 61,018 at Appendix F (“[D]etermine the suppliers that could sell into the destination market at a price less than or equal to 5% over the market price. That is, determine which generators have costs less than or equal to 1.05 times the market price.”); id., Appendix F n.216 (“The costs include running costs, transmission charges, [operation and maintenance] and environmental adders.”).

    26. The AEC of the units and all suppliers must also be calculated. AEC includes “capacity from generating units that are not used to serve native load (or are contractually committed).” 42 Accordingly, AEC is the amount of generating capacity meeting the definition of economic capacity less the amount of generating capacity needed to serve the potential supplier's native load commitments, where native load commitments are “commitments to serve wholesale and retail power customers on whose behalf the potential supplier, by statute, franchise, regulatory requirement, or contract, has undertaken an obligation to construct and operate its system to meet their reliable electricity needs.” 43 Units that are contractually committed or needed to serve native load or meet reliable electricity needs are not available to compete in a DPT analysis.

    42 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 31,132.

    43 18 CFR 33.3(d)(4)(i) (2015).

    27. Furthermore, as stated in the Merger Policy Statement, the presumption underlying the AEC measure is that the lowest running cost units are used to serve native load and other firm contractual obligations and would not be available for other sales.44 Such units are not available to compete in the DPT analysis.

    44 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 31,132.

    28. The second part of the analysis, evaluating whether generation with AEC can reach the study area, and the use of this information to compute market shares and concentration statistics, is discussed below.

    29. Turning to PNM's calculation, we find that the analysis as presented is flawed and from it we are unable to conclude that PNM rebutted the presumption of PNM's horizontal market power in the PNM balancing authority area. The deficiencies pertain to the following: (i) Data integrity; (ii) identification of potential supply; (iii) calculation of variable costs; (iv) accounting for power purchase agreements; (v) calculation of transmission rates; (vi) calculation of AEC; (vii) use of historical transaction data to corroborate results; and (viii) preparation of the SIL study. Each of these items is discussed further below.

    PNM's Calculation of Economic Capacity i. Data Integrity

    30. PNM submitted compact discs (CDs) that included its DPT model and underlying work papers with links to other data sources that are not available on its CDs. For instance, when opening some of the files on the CDs submitted on August 18, 2014 and on February 18, 2015, there is an error message that states “There are links to data sources that cannot be updated.”

    31. We remind applicants that including workable links to data sources in the spreadsheets enables the Commission to verify the accuracy of the data sources and to ensure the accuracy of the submitted DPT.

    ii. Identification of Potential Supply

    32. PNM appears to have included generating units that are no longer operational when it calculated EC. EC is the amount of generating capacity owned or controlled by a potential supplier with variable costs low enough that energy from such capacity could be economically delivered to the destination market. Including, for example, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Onofre) as operational and reporting units 2 and 3 of this plant as having EC in all seasons of the DPT analysis is inconsistent with the definition of EC.45 Thus, the output of generating facilities, such as San Onofre, that are not in operation during the seasons studied in a DPT analysis cannot feasibly be delivered to the destination market and should not be included in EC.

    45 We note that the Velocity Suite database indicates that the San Onofre plant units 2 and 3 last generated electricity in January 2012, while the study period for the DPT analysis was December 2012 through November 2013. This information is sourced from the Ventyx, Velocity Suite database in September 2015. We note that the San Onofre plant is currently in the process of decommissioning. See Decommissioning of San Onofre, http://www.songscommunity.com.

    33. Similarly, PNM identifies many units as having their output committed under long-term power purchase contracts, but still considers the units to have EC in the model. For example, PNM identifies Whitewater Hill Wind Partners as having EC when Whitewater Hill Wind Partners has affirmed to the Commission that the output of its facility is fully committed to an unaffiliated third party.46 An entity that does not own any uncommitted capacity or hold a long-term purchase contract should not be considered as a potential supplier of EC in a DPT analysis.47 In addition, PNM did not provide the information for these contracts as required in 18 CFR 33.3(d)(3)(i).

    46 Response to the Data Request, Workpaper “Wkp—Suppliers Details.xlsx” (Tab “AEC By Suppliers—Base Prices”). See also Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, LLC, Docket No. ER02-2309-000 at 1 (filed July 11, 2002); Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, LLC, Docket No. ER02-2309-000 (Aug. 29, 2002) (delegated letter order accepting filing). Note also that the comments in the spreadsheet submitted by PNM identify Whitewater Hill Wind Partners as being under a long-term contract. There are additional cells in PNM's spreadsheets that identify certain generating facilities as having EC or AEC even though the spreadsheets also show those facilities as being under long-term contracts.

    47 We note that here we describe Whitewater Hill Wind Partners for illustrative purposes only, and not because it is the only entity listed in PNM's DPT analysis that lacks EC or AEC.

    34. Commission regulations require that a potential supplier's EC be adjusted by long-term firm contracts.48 Units that are committed to unaffiliated entities under long-term firm contracts should be attributed to the purchasing entities rather than the owners of those facilities, and should potentially be included in EC only if the purchasing entity has EC. Thus, the inclusion of nonoperational units in the DPT analysis is inappropriate and the output of facilities that are committed under long-term firm contracts should be attributed to the purchasing entities and included as EC only if the purchasing entity has EC. The inclusion of generation from such units distorts the amount of EC in the DPT analysis. This raises additional concerns that the DPT results may be inaccurate and unreliable.

    48 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4)(i)(A) (2015) (“Economic capacity means the amount of generating capacity owned or controlled by a potential supplier with variable costs low enough that energy from such capacity could be economically delivered to the destination market. Prior to applying the delivered price test, the generating capacity meeting this definition must be adjusted by subtracting capacity committed under long-term firm sales contracts and adding capacity acquired under long-term firm purchase contracts (i.e., contracts with a remaining commitment of more than one year.”).

    iii. Calculating Variable Costs

    35. As mentioned above, Commission regulations state that for each generating plant or unit owned or controlled by each potential supplier in a DPT analysis, the applicant must also provide variable cost components, which must include at a minimum: (A) variable operation and maintenance, including both fuel and non-fuel operation and maintenance; and (B) environmental compliance.49

    49 18 CFR 33.3(d)(2)(i) (2015). Additionally, “[t]o the extent costs described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section are allocated among units at the same plant, allocation methods must be fully described.” 18 CFR 33.3(d)(2)(ii) (2015).

    Variable Cost: Fuel

    36. In its August 18, 2014 Filing, PNM states that it constructed a supply curve “in the model for each entity by estimating its unit-specific incremental dispatch costs. The incremental cost is calculated by multiplying the fuel cost for the unit by the unit's efficiency (heat rate) and adding any additional variable costs that may apply, i.e., costs for variable operations and maintenance and costs for environmental offsets.” 50 PNM further clarifies that “[t]he characteristics for all of the units included in the analysis, including their estimated incremental costs, are included in work papers.” 51 PNM states that incremental costs were derived by multiplying unit specific heat rates (generally from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form 860 or Ventyx) by fuel prices (from FERC Form 423 for the Study Period, as reported by Ventyx) and then adding VOM and any applicable environmental adders.

    50 August 18, 2014 Filing, Carey Aff. ¶ 34. We note that “Ventyx” is the same database as “Velocity Suite” also referred to as “Velocity.” In this order we use the term “Velocity Suite”, except for where the term “Ventyx” or “Velocity” is used in direct quotes from PNM's filings. We note that the acronym “VOM” used above in PNM's description of variable costs is generally interpreted to mean “Variable Operations and Maintenance” costs.

    51 August 18, 2014 Filing, Carey Aff. ¶ 34 n.36.

    37. Fuel is a significant component of variable cost, and natural gas- and coal-fired generation is a significant portion of the generation analyzed by PNM.52 PNM takes a number of steps to compute a fuel price for generators to determine whether they are economic in each of the 10 season/load levels. PNM appears to use natural gas price data from the “ICE10x Day Ahead Gas Prices” for the El Paso Gas (Permian Basin) and El Paso—South Mainline locations.53 Further, PNM appears to use EIA and Velocity Suite data to compute coal prices across the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region.

    52 For instance, natural gas-fired generation accounts for 28 percent of the nameplate generation capacity in the underlying PNM dataset. See id., Workpaper “Gas Prices Final.xlsx.”

    53See id., Workpaper “Gas Prices Final.xlsx” (Tab “Wkp—Gas Prices”); December 17, 2014 Filing, Workpaper “Wkp PNM DPT Public Inputs.xlsx” (Tab “Wkp—Gas Prices,” Tab “Wkp—Coal Spot Prices,” Tab “Wkp—Detailed Coal Transactions”).

    38. For natural gas, PNM computes seasonal prices at the two locations mentioned above by averaging all of the hourly prices for each location in each season/load level. These two locations seem to be the hubs that are closest to the PNM balancing authority area. However, PNM also includes in its spreadsheets hourly gas prices for 22 locations in the WECC region.54 The summer average prices for the 22 locations range from $1.88 at “Questar North Pool” to $3.27 at “PG&E-Citygate,” a variation of almost 74 percent. Although PNM submitted data for 22 locations, it only used prices from the two hubs identified above to calculate input costs for all gas-fired generators in the WECC region.

    54 August 18, 2014 Filing, Workpaper “Gas Prices Final.xlsx” (Tab “Wkp—Gas Prices”).

    39. Additionally, PNM uses only three natural gas prices in its model, one for each of the summer, winter and shoulder seasons. To do this, for the one-hour Summer Super Peak 1 (S_SP1) season, PNM computes a price of $3.57/MMBtu at El Paso Gas (Permian Basin) and $3.81/MMBtu at El Paso—South Mainline. In a similar way, PNM calculates prices for the remaining seasons/load levels at each of these locations. Next, PNM calculates the average of the El Paso Gas (Permian Basin) and El Paso—South Mainline seasonal prices in order to attain 10 average seasonal natural gas prices. PNM then calculates the average over the four summer seasons/load levels as the summer natural gas price, and uses that as the natural gas price for all four summer seasons/load levels in its model. PNM calculates Winter and Shoulder seasonal natural gas prices similarly.

    40. Further, PNM submitted work papers that include an average coal price for 83 plants with unique EIA identification numbers. Only seven of these plants appear to be in the WECC region, although there are more than seven coal-fired plants in WECC. These average prices were calculated from monthly “Detailed Coal Transactions From December 2012 to November 2013,” 55 but not every plant has an average price for each month and some plants include more than one average price for some months. The average prices for the seven WECC plants range from $1.42 to $2.52 per MMBtu, but do not account for any seasonality in coal prices. In its generation dataset, PNM appears to attribute the calculated coal price for each of the seven plants as that plant's input cost, but then uses the average of all seven as the input price for all other coal-fired generators in the WECC.

    55 December 17, 2014 Filing, Workpaper “Wkp PNM DPT Public Inputs.xlsx” (Tab “Wkp—Detailed Coal Transactions”).

    41. Sellers should account for some measure of regional differences in fuel price. As described above, PNM used one natural gas price for each of the three seasons' seasonal gas price estimate for all gas-fired generation in the entire WECC, which are derived from the average prices at two hubs. That is, PNM used the same natural gas fuel costs for generators in Alberta, Northern and Southern California and New Mexico even though PNM's own spreadsheets detail the locational variation in natural gas prices across the WECC region. As explained above, the fuel cost of each generating facility is one of the main factors in determining whether the output of that facility should be included as EC in a DPT analysis. Oversimplifying the variable cost calculations by assuming that all gas-fired generators have the same input cost regardless of their location may cause certain units, whose actual gas prices are lower than these averages, to be inappropriately considered uneconomic and may cause units whose actual gas prices are higher than these averages to be inappropriately considered economic. Thus, regional price variation for input fuels should be considered in a model that includes competing supply capacity from a large geographic footprint, and a generator's fuel cost should be estimated from a nearby price point unless the seller explains why another methodology is reasonable. Furthermore, we note an apparent contradiction between the seven coal prices used in the generation data set and the single coal price reported for WECC of $1.97 56 in the Fuel Prices Summary worksheet. However, as with natural gas prices, we would expect a coal-fired generator's fuel cost to be estimated from a nearby price point and not an average of several price points across a region as large as WECC.

    56Id., Workpaper “Wkp PNM DPT Public Inputs.xlsx” (Tab “Wkp—Fuel Prices Summary”). PNM used a price of $1.97 for Winter, Summer, and Shoulder season.

    42. For the reasons stated above, we cannot conclude that PNM has rebutted the presumption of market power because of the flaws in its analysis.

    Variable Cost: Operations and Maintenance

    43. As mentioned above, Commission regulations state that sellers must calculate, at a minimum, variable cost for a unit used in the DPT analysis. For each such generating unit, the seller must also provide variable cost components, which include operation and maintenance costs.57

    57 18 CFR 33.3(d)(2) (2015).

    44. PNM's DPT model contains a worksheet, “Generation Dataset,” that contains variable cost calculations for the WECC generators that PNM included in its model. There are 4,293 observations in this dataset and 2,118 of these observations have a zero dollar cost for VOM.58 We note that a vast majority of these observations with a zero dollar cost for VOM are from renewable resources.

    58 December 17, 2014 Filing, Workpaper “Wkp PNM DPT Public Inputs.xlsx” (Tab “Generation Dataset”).

    45. Although the Data Request did not specifically request that PNM provide actual values for VOM costs, we take this opportunity to provide clarification to PNM and other DPT filers. Although VOM costs may be a small component of hourly costs, we do not expect these costs for most generating units to have a zero value 59 because all generation technologies require maintenance or have at least some operational costs to produce electricity. PNM states that it uses Velocity Suite data in its model. We note that Velocity Suite provides cost estimates for various renewable generation technologies. PNM has not explained why it assumed a zero cost for VOM when estimates for this cost are available for most types of renewable generation from Velocity Suite.60

    59 We note that although EIA states that wind generation has a relatively small VOM cost, EIA uses a zero cost for all non dispatchable generation in its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 Reference Case model. See EIA, Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (June 2015), available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf.

    60 A Velocity Suite supply curve for the PNM balancing authority area for July 31, 2013, provides a range of VOM cost estimates for most types of renewable generation. Specifically, Velocity Suite provides a VOM in $/MWh of $1.26 to $1.56 for the hydro plants; $1.90 to $2.06 for photovoltaic generation; $1.25 for energy storage devices; and $4.79 for biomass facilities. Velocity Suite does not provide a VOM cost for wind generation. Velocity Suite states that its estimates are based on many sources of unit or plant data and are calculated in an internal model.

    46. Therefore, it appears that PNM underestimates the variable cost of a significant portion of generation in its DPT model, which potentially overestimates the amount of EC calculated in its DPT analysis.

    iv. Accounting for Purchase Contracts

    47. As mentioned above, another step in the calculation of a supplier's EC is accounting for long-term firm purchase contracts. EC refers to “the amount of generating capacity owned or controlled by a potential supplier with variable costs low enough that energy from such capacity could be economically delivered to the destination market.” 61 The Commission's regulations require that “the generating capacity meeting this definition must be adjusted by subtracting capacity committed under long-term firm sales contracts and adding capacity acquired under long-term firm purchase contracts (i.e., contracts with a remaining commitment of more than one year).” 62 The regulations further provide that “capacity associated with any such adjustments must be attributed to the party that has authority to decide when generating resources are available for operation” and notes that “other generating capacity may also be attributed to another supplier based on operational control criteria as deemed necessary, but the applicant must explain the reasons for doing so.” 63

    61See 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4)(i)(A) (2015).

    62Id.

    63Id.

    48. As noted above, Commission regulations require information on all long-term firm purchases and sales “for each sale and purchase of capacity” as part of the DPT analysis.64 A seller performing a DPT analysis should account for the purchase contracts of potential suppliers because the contracts may affect the competitive situation of a supplier in a DPT analysis. A supplier with a contractual obligation to sell energy or capacity may not have any AEC to be considered as competing in the DPT analysis. Conversely, a supplier with the contractual obligation to purchase supply may have excess energy and become a potential supplier in the DPT analysis. The determination of whether a supplier with purchase contracts has EC or AEC depends on a number of factors specific to that supplier such as the supplier's native load (if any), the amount of generation the supplier has to meet that load, including any contracts the supplier has to buy or sell energy or capacity, and the prevailing market price. These specific factors should be accounted for in a DPT analysis to determine whether a potential supplier with purchase contracts is a potential competitor.

    64See 18 CFR 33.3(d)(3). See also n.37 above.

    49. The Data Request sought information from PNM concerning how certain sellers could be considered competitive suppliers for purposes of the DPT analysis when each of those seller's native load appeared to exceed its generation capacity. Specifically, PNM was asked to explain whether one particular supplier, Tri State Generation & Transmission Association Inc. (TriState), could have any uncommitted capacity to compete with PNM given that TriState's peak load is reported to be greater than its generation capacity. The Data Request did not specifically identify any other sellers in a similar situation to TriState. However, the Data Request directed PNM to identify every potential supplier for whom its study deducted native load obligations, the amount of those obligations and the source of their native load values.65 Finally, the Data Request directed PNM to adjust its model as needed to reflect TriState and other sellers that have load greater than their respective uncommitted capacity.66

    65See Data Request, Question No. 5, at 4.

    66See Data Request, Question No. 6, at 4.

    50. In its Response to the Data Request, PNM stated that there are differences between the reporting in the data sources that the Commission used to formulate its questions and the data source(s) PNM used in its calculation of competitive supply. PNM further added that TriState “has substantial purchase agreements, including ownership in [WECC] output facilities that would not be tracked by Velocity.” 67 PNM did not mention any other sellers who might be in this similar situation.

    67 Response to the Data Request at 8.

    51. We appreciate PNM's Response to the Data Request but find that more information is necessary. While PNM provided information on TriState's purchasing, it did not disclose the amount of power purchased under these contracts that would enable TriState to meet its native load requirements and have sufficient generation to be a competitive supplier in the DPT analysis. PNM also did not meet the reporting requirements for long-term contracts of sales and purchases in 18 CFR 33.3(d)(3) for TriState or for any other suppliers, such as Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, whose output is fully committed under long-term contract to another entity. Additionally, in its Response to the Data Request, PNM did not indicate whether there are other potential suppliers with long-term contracts or adjust its model to reflect any other potential suppliers with native load obligations greater than their respective generation capacity.

    52. Generation units in a supplier's portfolio whose output is committed under long-term firm contracts should not be considered available to compete in the study area as AEC. Including such capacity may overstate the amount of AEC that a potential supplier can contribute or inaccurately attribute that capacity to the wrong potential supplier in a DPT analysis. Additionally, incorrectly attributing capacity to sellers that have sold the output of their facilities to unaffiliated entities under purchase power agreements impacts the market concentration results of the DPT analysis. Lastly, PNM did not adjust its model as requested in the Data Request or otherwise explain that such adjustment was not required. For these reasons, we are unable to rely on PNM's DPT analysis.

    v. Transmission Rates

    53. As mentioned above, Commission regulations require a DPT analysis to account for any and all applicable transmission costs that a supplier would incur to deliver the energy into the study area and add these costs to the estimate of the available unit's variable generation cost. Commission regulations state that these costs must include the maximum transmission rate in a transmission provider's tariff as well as the estimated cost of supplying energy losses.68

    68 18 CFR 33.3(d)(5) (2015).

    54. PNM did not include all applicable transmission costs in its EC calculation. In the December 17, 2014 Filing, PNM's DPT analysis used a universal $2.00 transmission rate for all peak periods and a $1.00 transmission rate for all off-peak periods for all generators, regardless of location.69

    69 December 17, 2014 Filing, Workpaper “Wkp PNM DPT Public Inputs.xlsx” (Tab “Wkp—TTC and Tx Rates”).

    55. In the Data Request, PNM was requested to provide the transmission rate schedule for the PNM balancing authority area and all of the balancing authority areas where competing suppliers are located, and to provide cites to the relevant open access transmission tariff(s).70 The Data Request asked PNM to explain if the transmission rates used in its DPT analysis are the maximum rates for the PNM balancing authority area and the balancing authority areas where the DPT analysis indicates there is competitively priced generation.71 Finally, the Data Request directed that, if those are not the maximum rates, PNM should re-run the AEC calculations to include the cost to traverse each balancing authority area using the maximum `up to' transmission rate when PNM re-runs the DPT model.72

    70 Data Request, Question No. 14a, at 6.

    71Id., Question No. 14b, at 6-7.

    72Id., Question No. 14c, at 7.

    56. In Response to the Data Request, PNM stated that it assumed transmission rates for purposes of the model because it lacks details on specific transmission rates for some of the WECC transmission providers. PNM stated that this assumption has a de minimis impact on the results of the analyses. PNM also provided a spreadsheet that identifies the 24 individual balancing authority areas in WECC, their minimum and maximum transmission rates, information on the rate schedules for these balancing authority areas and screen snapshots of the appropriate Open Access Same Time Information System (OASIS) Web sites where PNM retrieved the maximum and minimum rates.73

    73See Response to the Data Request, “WECC OATT Rates.xlsx.”

    57. We note that these maximum rates for the peak periods ranged from $1.26 to $10.02 and averaged $4.96. Likewise, the maximum rates for the off-peak periods ranged from $0.72 to $9.00 and averaged $3.59. In Response to the Data Request, PNM provided a sensitivity analysis that used the average of these maximum transmission rates to update its DPT model.74 PNM complied with the first part of Question 14 by identifying that the $2.00 and $1.00 transmission rates are not the maximum rates for the peak and off-peak periods, respectively. PNM also identified the 24 source balancing authority areas and provided a link and screen snapshots of the OASIS Web sites for these balancing authority areas that display their maximum and minimum rates.

    74See id.

    58. However, we find the remaining portion of PNM's Response to the Data Request to be unresponsive to the question asked and not in compliance with Commission regulations. PNM did not re-run the DPT analysis with the maximum rate for each balancing authority area as requested in the Data Request 75 and required by Commission regulations.76 Furthermore, PNM did not calculate any additional costs for transmission losses or ancillary services necessary to deliver energy into the study area, as required by Commission regulations.77 For capacity outside of the study area, PNM did not consider additional transmission charges that a competing generator would likely incur to deliver power to the destination market. Therefore, we find that PNM's calculations underestimate the transmission cost component for most observations in its dataset and further compromise the results of the DPT analysis.

    75 Data Request, Question No. 14c, at 7 (“If the rates used in your model are not the maximum rate, please re-run your AEC calculations using the maximum `up to' transmission rate to include the cost to traverse each balancing authority when you re-run your DPT model.”).

    76 18 CFR 33.3(d)(5) (2015).

    77 18 CFR 33.3(d)(5) (2015).

    vi. Calculation of AEC

    59. As mentioned above, alternative suppliers should be able to reach the market both economically and physically.78 First, we discuss how to determine the AEC of a supplier.

    78 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 30,130.

    60. After computing the EC of potential competing suppliers, an applicant should compute the AEC of those suppliers. AEC is “the amount of generating capacity meeting the definition of EC less the amount of generating capacity needed to serve the potential supplier's native load commitments.” 79 We note that the Commission has relied more heavily on AEC in the DPT analysis when utilities have significant native load.80 Further, in Order No. 697, the Commission stated that “in markets where utilities retain significant native load obligations, an analysis of available economic capacity may more accurately assess an individual seller's competitiveness, as well as the overall competitiveness of a market, because available economic capacity recognizes the native load obligations of the sellers.” 81

    79 18 CFR 33.3(c)(4)(i)(B) (2015).

    80Great Plains Energy, Inc., 121 FERC ¶ 61,069, at P 34 & n.44 (2007), reh'g denied, 122 FERC ¶ 61,177 (2008); Nat'l Grid, plc, 117 FERC ¶ 61,080, at PP 27-28 (2006), reh'g denied, 122 FERC ¶ 61,096 (2008); Westar Energy, Inc., 115 FERC ¶ 61,228, at P 72, reh'g denied, 117 FERC ¶ 61,011, at P 39 (2006); Nev. Power Co., 113 FERC ¶ 61,265, at P 15 (2005).

    81 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 112.

    61. The Data Request directed PNM to explain whether its DPT model first allocated the lowest running cost units to a supplier's native load and cited to the Merger Policy Statement.82 In Response to the Data Request, PNM stated, in part, that “[t]he model implicitly allocates PNM's lowest running cost units to serve native load for PNM and non-PNM suppliers to their native load (non-PNM load) by the derivation of the [AEC]. The DPT model does not rank order each supplier's generating units from lowest to highest running cost but rather aggregates all [EC] for each supplier within the seasonal/load periods analyzed.” 83

    82 Data Request, Question No. 4, at 3 (“In the [AEC] calculation, please explain whether the model first allocates PNM's lowest running cost units to serve native load for PNM. Please explain whether the model allocates the lowest running cost units of non-PNM suppliers to their native load (non-PNM load).”). The Data Request noted that “AEC includes `capacity from generating units that are not used to serve native load (or are contractually committed) and whose variable costs are such that they could deliver energy to a market at a price close to the competitive price in the market. The presumption underlying this measure is that the lowest running cost units are used to serve native load and other firm contractual obligations and would not be available for other sales.'” Data Request, Question No. 4 n.6, at 3 (citing Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 30,132).

    83 Response to the Data Request at 7.

    62. In the Merger Policy Statement, the Commission stated that the AEC measure “includes capacity from generating units that are not used to serve native load (or are contractually committed).” 84 However, PNM stated that “[t]he DPT model does not rank order each supplier's generating units from lowest to highest running cost but rather aggregates all economic capacity for each supplier within the seasonal/load periods analyzed.” 85 Further, it is unclear how PNM's model might implicitly allocate an entity's lowest running cost units to serve its native load. Based on this response, we conclude that PNM did not allocate the lowest cost units of itself and its competitors to serve their respective native load. Therefore, we are unable to rely on the reported results of potential competitive AEC suppliers and whether they accurately reflect the costs of the competitive generation in the market.

    84 Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 30,132.

    85 Response to the Data Request at 7 (emphasis added).

    vii. Historical Transaction Data to Corroborate Results

    63. Commission regulations state that “[t]he applicant must provide historical trade data and historical transmission data to corroborate the results of the horizontal Competitive Analysis Screen.” 86 Commission regulations also state that the applicant must provide data and information used in calculating the EC and AEC that a potential supplier could deliver to a destination market, including transmission capability, transmission constraints and firm transmission rights.87 Further, Commission direction has been to provide a “trade data check” to support the results of the DPT analysis.88

    86 18 CFR 33.3(c)(6) (2015).

    87See 18 CFR 33.3(d)(7)-(9) (2015).

    88See Merger Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 at 30,133 (“It would be expected that there be some correlation between the suppliers included in the market by the delivered price test and those actually trading in the market. As a check, actual trade data should be used to compare actual trade patterns with the results of the delivered price test. For example, it may be appropriate to include current trading partners in the relevant market even if the above analysis indicates otherwise.”).

    64. The Data Request directed PNM to identify suppliers with AEC and document their contribution to competing supply entering the PNM study area.89 In its Response to the Data Request, PNM provided a spreadsheet that complied with the request by identifying all generation units, their location, and the identity of the suppliers with non-zero contribution to the AEC calculation.90

    89 Data Request, Question No. 15, at 7 (“Please provide the following information for each supplier with a non-zero contribution to the available economic capacity in the study area of your model: the full name of each supplier, the name of the unit(s) that supplied the energy, the amount of energy supplied by each unit(s) in megawatts and the balancing authority area location of the unit(s) for each of the 10 load level/study periods.” (footnote omitted)).

    90 Response to the Data Request at 12 & Workpaper “Wkp—Suppliers Details.xlsx.”

    65. Although the Data Request did not specifically ask PNM to provide historical transaction data to corroborate the results of its DPT analysis, we take this opportunity to provide clarification for PNM and others who may file a DPT analysis in a section 205 proceeding in order to rebut the presumption of market power. PNM did not submit historical transaction data or transmission data to corroborate the results of its model as required by 18 CFR 33.3(c)(6). For example, although PNM indicates in its Response to the Data Request that its model includes significant generation capacity from the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) market as available to compete in the PNM balancing authority area, PNM did not submit historical transaction data or transmission data to corroborate this. PNM could have submitted eTag data to demonstrate flows from CAISO were consistent with its DPT model. Moreover, the Commission's review of eTag data was not able to corroborate PNM's results. Without such information, we are concerned that the amount of competing generation capacity imported into the PNM study area in PNM's DPT analysis is not supported by historical trade or transmission data and is overstated. We remind DPT filers that they should provide historical trade and transmission data and explain significant discrepancies between modeling results and such data.

    viii. SIL Study

    66. As mentioned above, alternative suppliers must be able to reach the market both economically and physically. We provide clarification regarding determining the physical capability of a supplier with EC and AEC to reach the study area.91

    91 In this order, we do not discuss the ultimate DPT calculations, combining the economic and physical analyses to create market share and concentration indices because we do not believe that the first two steps of the PNM DPT analysis provide a reasonable foundation to examine this final step.

    67. The physical ability of a supplier to reach the market or study area requires the use of a SIL study as a basis for transmission access for both the indicative screens and the DPT analysis.92 In Order No. 697, the Commission clarified that the SIL study as shown in Appendix E of the April 14 Order is the only study that meets the Commission's requirements for the DPT analysis and the indicative screens.93 In the April 14 Order, the Commission set the amount of supply that can reach the relevant market as uncommitted capacity limited by the simultaneous transmission import capability.94 In Puget Sound Energy, Inc., the Commission consolidated and clarified its direction regarding SIL studies given in previous orders and provided required formats for submitting SIL data.95 Specifically, the Commission directed filers to submit their SIL data in the format provided in Appendix B of Puget in order to properly summarize and document their SIL study results.96

    92 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 19.

    93Id. (“With regard to [SILs], the Commission adopts the requirement that the SIL study be used as a basis for transmission access for both the indicative screens and the DPT analysis. Further, the Commission clarifies that the SIL study as shown in Appendix E of the April 14 Order is the only study that meets our requirements.”).

    94 April 14 Order, 107 FERC ¶ 61,018 at Appendix E.

    95Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 135 FERC ¶ 61,254 (2011) (Puget).

    96 Submittal 1 of Appendix B of Puget contains a summary table of components used to calculate SIL values and provides a spreadsheet format with numerical examples. Submittal 2 provides a spreadsheet for identification of long-term firm transmission reservations used to import power from seller and affiliate generating resources in a first-tier area to serve native load in the study area.

    68. The SIL study calculates the aggregated simultaneous transfer capability into the balancing authority area being studied. It is intended to provide a reasonable simulation of historical conditions and is not a theoretical maximum import capability or best import case scenario.97 A simplified view of the SIL study is that it simultaneously increases generator output in one area, the first-tier, and decreases generator output in another area, the study area. As the source of generation is incrementally shifted, single contingency conditions are tested in both areas while the relevant transmission elements are monitored for overloads.98 A “single contingency condition” is the unexpected failure of a single system component, such as a generator, transmission line, circuit breaker, switch or other electrical equipment.99 The Commission direction has been to increase or “scale up available generation in the exporting (aggregated first tier areas) and scale down the study area resources according to the same methods used historically in assessing available transmission for non-affiliate resources.” 100

    97Puget, 135 FERC ¶ 61,254 at Appendix B (citing Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 354).

    98See, e.g., Puget, 135 FERC ¶ 61,254, Appendix B, § I.D (Prior Commission Direction on Scaling).

    99Id. Appendix B (citing Carolina Power & Light Co., 128 FERC ¶ 61,039, at P 8 n.7 (2009)).

    100 April 14 Order, 107 FERC ¶ 61,018 at Appendix E.

    69. The Commission recognizes that it is a complex process for a seller to estimate transmission capability using the model of its transmission system in a simplified manner so that elements are accurately accounted for in SIL studies. Therefore, the Commission previously has provided guidance so that sellers can more accurately measure the amount of available transmission capability into the study area. One area of concern has been the proper modeling and scaling of jointly-owned generating plants in a SIL study, particularly when units have long-term firm transmission reservations.101 The Commission has determined that these remote plants should be dispatched at their historical output levels and should not be scaled down as doing so would be unrealistic and inconsistent with historical practices.102

    101 A long-term firm transmission reservation is a reservation that is 28 days or longer. See Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 368 (“While we find that firm transmission reservations less than or equal to 28 days in duration are usually unpredictable, we believe that firm transmission reservations of a longer duration are not related to the unpredictable nature of real time events and are based upon planned and predictable events. Therefore, the Commission will require sellers to account for firm and network transmission reservations having a duration of longer than 28 days.”).

    102See Pinnacle West Capital Corp., 117 FERC ¶ 61,316, at P 6 (2006) (Pinnacle West).

    70. In Pinnacle West, 103 the Commission identified errors and provided guidance and clarification as to how the SIL study should be revised to satisfy the Commission's requirements. The PNM SIL study presents issues similar to those presented by the SIL study at issue in Pinnacle West. With regard to the PNM SIL study, the Data Request noted that some units within the study area have long-term firm commitments to serve load outside of the study area. The Data Request noted that the Commission expects that any such unit's generation that has been committed with long-term firm transmission reservations would be considered unavailable for scaling; however, it appears that some such units were scaled down during the SIL study. Therefore, the Data Request required PNM to identify all generation units within the PNM balancing authority area that have long-term firm transmission reservations (to serve study area load or to export power to the first-tier), describe whether the unit's output level was either maintained or scaled in the SIL study, and adjust the SIL study as necessary.104

    103Id. P 3.

    104 Data Request, Question No. 2, at 2 (citing Pinnacle West, 117 FERC ¶ 61,316 at P 6; April 14 Order, 107 FERC ¶ 61,018 at Appendix E).

    71. In its Response to the Data Request, PNM filed revised work papers and SIL information. PNM also submitted a table listing the long-term firm transmission reservations for exports out of the PNM balancing authority area and the corresponding source generator within the study area. This table indicates that these generation units are jointly-owned by PNM and other entities, and that the non-PNM owned portions of these units are committed with long-term firm transmission reservations to export out of the study area (i.e., the PNM balancing authority area). However, based on the power flow models submitted by PNM in the original SIL study, it is evident that PNM scaled down these jointly-owned generation units, including portions belonging to other owners.105 In addition, PNM provided Submittal 1 and Submittal 2 tables which reported the results of two sensitivities that PNM conducted in response to the scaling guidance in the Data Request.

    105 August 18, 2014 Filing, Stahlhut Aff. Exhibit JWS-3.

    72. PNM's first sensitivity study “does not scale resources with potential commitments outside of the PNM [balancing authority area].” 106 The second sensitivity “scales half of the resources with potential commitments outside of the PNM [balancing authority area].” 107 However, for both sensitivities, PNM stated that “the associated export reservations are recognized as long-term firm commitments to be consistent and reflect the equal but opposite effect to import reservations and compensate for prematurely limiting the imports below the physical limit of the transmission system or load within the study area. The export reservations are reflected in the SIL sensitivity analyses by inclusion in Table 2 [of Submittal 2].” 108

    106 Response to the Data Request at 3. We interpret PNM's language “resources with potential commitments” to mean the long-term firm transmission reservations capacity or export reservations of the units within the PNM balancing authority area that have long-term firm transmission reservations to serve load in the first tier.

    107Id. at 4.

    108Id. at 3-4.

    73. The practice of capturing long-term firm export reservations in Submittal 2 is inconsistent with the instructions and purpose of Submittal 2, which is to identify and sum the long-term firm transmission reservations from affiliated remote generating resources in the first-tier to serve native load in the study area.109 Export reservations are long-term firm transmission reservations from the study area to the first-tier to serve first-tier load; because the exports are commitments from capacity that belongs to the first-tier, these export reservations should not be captured in Submittal 2. As such, the Commission cannot utilize these sensitivities as support for PNM's SIL study. Furthermore, while the scaling method used in the first sensitivity is consistent with guidance given in the Data Request, the ownership and commitments of the generation units was not apparent in the original August 18, 2014 Filing or the December 17, 2014 Filing. Thus, we believe that further clarification is warranted on the modeling and treatment of jointly-owned units in SIL studies.

    109Puget, 135 FERC ¶ 61,254, at Appendix B, § II.B.

    74. In Puget, the Commission stated that “[i]n the case of jointly-owned power plants, the plant's capacity should be allocated among the generator owners' balancing authority areas according to its ownership percentages.” 110 Additionally, the Commission has stated that a seasonal benchmark case model should simulate historical seasonal conditions that were present during the modeled season. The Commission has stated that “[a]ny generating units owned by the study area utility that are located in the first-tier area, including the study area utility's portion of jointly-owned units[,] should be modeled . . . in the first-tier area.” 111 In addition, “any long-term reservations from these facilities used to serve study area native load shall be included in the study area net area interchange.” 112 While this statement references jointly-owned generating units located in the first-tier area, we believe that it is reasonable to treat jointly-owned generating units located within the study area committed to serving first-tier load similarly. As portions of these units belong to unaffiliated entities located in the first-tier area, they should not be scaled down; doing so would misrepresent the incremental transfer capability of the study area by reducing generation that actually has commitments to first-tier load.113 This has the effect of allowing more first-tier generation into the study area than is actually available to be displaced in the study area.

    110Id. P 18.

    111Id., Appendix B, II.D at 4.3.7.

    112Id.

    113See id., Appendix B, § II.D (Submittal 4: Seasonal Benchmark Case) (4.3.7 and 4.3.8 discuss how jointly-owned units should be modeled according to historical dispatch).

    75. Thus, we clarify that, for purposes of generation scaling for the SIL, the appropriate method of modeling a generation unit in the study area that is jointly-owned between the seller and one or more unaffiliated sellers in the first-tier area is to represent the unit as multiple units in the model based on ownership percentage such that the multiple units fully represent the generation commitments and impacts on the transmission system. One unit will represent the seller's generation capacity in the study area, and one or more additional units will represent the capacity owned by unaffiliated entities within the first-tier area.114 The seller's unit will remain modeled within the study area balancing authority area while the portion of the unit(s) belonging to unaffiliated first-tier sellers will be given the appropriate first-tier balancing authority area number in the model. Importantly, we note that this method retains the same physical location of the unit within the transmission network as modeled; however, the portion of the unit(s) belonging to the unaffiliated first-tier sellers would not be considered a study area generator for purposes of calculating net area interchange. We also note that with this method, the seller's generation capacity can appropriately be scaled down, and the portion of the unit(s) belonging to the unaffiliated first-tier sellers now modeled in the first-tier area can appropriately be scaled up to serve study area load if it is not committed under long-term firm transmission reservations. Additionally, any generating resources in the first-tier with long-term firm transmission reservations to serve study area load should be reported as a long-term firm transmission reservation in Submittal 2.115 Furthermore, entities are required to “[p]rovide a listing of first-tier area generating units and portions of jointly-owned first-tier area generating units to be scaled-up in the first-tier area, including any first-tier area generation or portions of jointly-owned first-tier area generating units physically located within the study area, according to the same methods used historically in assessing available transmission for non-affiliate resources.” 116 Entities should identify their jointly-owned units, report the ownership breakdown, and indicate what scaling, if any, was utilized for each portion of the generator.

    114 In Puget, the Commission approved NorthWestern's use of this general method to represent the jointly-owned Colstrip plant. The model represented separate generators for each owner, each with one owner's portion of Colstrip's total capacity. Id. P 18.

    115Id., Appendix B, II.B, Instruction 3.

    116Id., Appendix B, II.G (Submittal 7: The Sub-System File) (7.2.1).

    76. Finally, we clarify that entities should complete the “Description of Remote Resources” column as necessary in each row of Submittal 2.117 We expect that, at a minimum, entities will indicate the balancing authority area from which these remote resources are sourced.

    117Id., Appendix B, II.B (Submittal 2: Identification of Long-Term Firm Transmission Reservations used to Import Power for Generating Resources in the First-Tier Area to Serve Native Load in the Study Area) (Instruction 2).

    Conclusion

    77. As described above, we are unable to validate the results of PNM's SIL model, its calculations of EC and AEC, and its DPT analysis. Thus, we find that PNM has not adequately rebutted the presumption of horizontal market power caused by its failure of the indicative screens in the PNM balancing authority area. Therefore, we reject, without prejudice, PNM's request for market-based rate authorization in the PNM balancing authority area. We encourage other market-based rate applicants to make use of the guidance and clarification offered herein.

    D. Notice of Change in Status

    78. PNM states that its purchase of Delta Person does not affect PNM's horizontal market power because PNM was already deemed to control the output of the Delta Person facility under a long-term contract with Delta Person.118 In its most recent updated market power analysis for the Southwest region, PNM studied Delta Person's generation in the first-tier balancing authority areas in which PNM has market-based rate authority.119

    118 August 18, 2014 Filing at 1.

    119Public Service Company of New Mexico, Docket No. ER10-2302-004 (Aug. 22, 2014) (delegated letter order). PNM has market-based rate authority in seven first-tier balancing authority areas to the PNM balancing authority area. These balancing authority areas are Southwestern Public Service Company, Western Area Power Administration-Colorado Missouri, Western Area Power Administration—Lower Colorado, Public Service Company of Colorado, Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project, and Tucson Electric Power Company.

    79. Based on PNM's representations, we find that PNM satisfies the Commission's requirements for market-based rates regarding horizontal market power in all balancing authority areas in which PNM currently has market-based rate authority, i.e., outside of the PNM and El Paso Electric balancing authority areas.

    80. PNM represents that of it and its affiliates, only PNM owns or controls transmission facilities subject to Commission jurisdiction. PNM states that open access to these transmission facilities is provided pursuant to the terms of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff on file with the Commission.120 Further, PNM represents that neither it nor any affiliate owns or controls intrastate natural gas transportation, storage, or distribution facilities. PNM represents that it owns several sites that may be used for generation capacity development including sites in which PNM has existing facilities. PNM states that it currently has plans to develop new generation at or near the San Juan Generating Station in the PNM balancing authority area. Additionally, PNM states that it holds one undeveloped site near Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    120 Public Service Company of New Mexico, FERC FPA Electric Tariff, PNM Open Access Transmission Tariff.

    81. PNM states that it purchases coal under various long-term agreements but does not currently own any coal mines or mineral rights. PNM represents that these coal purchase contracts are used exclusively to supply coal to power plants owned and operated by PNM.

    82. Finally, PNM states that it has not erected barriers to entry into the relevant market, the PNM balancing authority area, and will not erect barriers to entry into the relevant market.

    83. Based on PNM's representations, we find that PNM satisfies the Commission's requirements for market-based rates regarding vertical market power.

    84. Based on PNM's satisfaction of the Commission's requirements for market-based authorization regarding horizontal and vertical market power in the markets where it has market-based rate authority, we accept PNM's notice of change in status.

    E. Reporting Requirements

    85. An entity with market-based rate authorization must file an Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) with the Commission, consistent with Order Nos. 2001 121 and 768,122 to fulfill its responsibility under section 205(c) 123 of the Federal Power Act to have rates on file in a convenient form and place.124 PNM must file EQRs electronically with the Commission consistent with the procedures set forth in Order No. 770.125 Failure to timely and accurately file an EQR is a violation of the Commission's regulations for which PNM may be subject to refund, civil penalties, and/or revocation of market-based rate authority.126

    121Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ¶ 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ¶ 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ¶ 61,314 (2002), order directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ¶ 61,334, order refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ¶ 61,352 (2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ¶ 61,060 (2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ¶ 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-H, 121 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-I, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,282 (2008).

    122Electricity Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Fed. Power Act, Order No. 768, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,336 (2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2013).

    123 16 U.S.C. 824d(c) (2012).

    124See Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process, Order No. 770, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,338, at P 3 (2012) (citing Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127 at P 31).

    125 Order No. 770, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,338.

    126 The exact filing dates for these reports are prescribed in 18 CFR 35.10b (2015). Forfeiture of market-based rate authority may require a new application for market-based rate authority if the applicant wishes to resume making sales at market-based rates.

    86. PNM must timely report to the Commission any change in status that would reflect a departure from the characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-based rate authority.127

    127Reporting Requirement for Changes in Status for Public Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority, Order No. 652, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,175, order on reh'g, 111 FERC ¶ 61,413 (2005); 18 CFR 35.42 (2015).

    87. Additionally, PNM must file an updated market power analysis for all regions in which it is designated as a Category 2 seller in compliance with the regional reporting schedule adopted in Order No. 697.128 The Commission also reserves the right to require such an analysis at any intervening time.

    128 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at PP 848-850.

    The Commission orders:

    (A) PNM's notice of change in status is hereby accepted for filing, as discussed in the body of this order.

    (B) PNM's request for market-based authority in the PNM balancing authority area is hereby rejected, without prejudice, as discussed in the body of this order.

    (C) PNM's SIL study is hereby rejected, without prejudice, as discussed in the body of this order.

    (D) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish a copy of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: October 15, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26724 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0691; FRL 9935-87-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club (collectively, “Plaintiffs”): Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:15-CV-745 (ABJ) (D. D.C.). Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to grant or deny within 60 days a petition submitted by Plaintiffs in October 2014, requesting that EPA object to a revised CAA Title V permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) to the Southwestern Electric Power Company for operation of the H.W. Pirkey Power Plant in Harrison County, Texas. The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take such action.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0691, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Branning, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1744; fax number: (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take action under CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed by the Plaintiffs regarding Southwestern Electric Power Company for operation of the H.W. Pirkey Power Plant in Harrison County, Texas, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or before February 12, 2016.

    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the procedure for the Plaintiffs to request costs of litigation, including attorney fees.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this proposed decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0691 contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26782 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0595; FRL-9935-88-OW] Notice of Public Meeting and Webinar and Request for Comment on the Draft Document “Technologies for Legionella Control: Scientific Literature Review” AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the release of a draft document, “Technologies for Legionella Control: Scientific Literature Review,” for public review and comment, and a public meeting, during which EPA will be seeking input on the draft document. The purpose of the draft document is to characterize the current state of knowledge regarding the use and effectiveness of available control technologies and approaches that can be used to address Legionella public health concerns in building water systems. The term “building water system” refers to the pipe infrastructure inside a building used to deliver finished drinking water intended for human consumption. For the purpose of this draft document, the term excludes cooling towers. The draft document presents scientific information from peer reviewed literature related to control technologies. It does not rank or recommend any one technology over another. EPA developed the document to provide a non-regulatory tool to assist states and primacy agencies, building water system operators and building owners when making decisions about Legionella risk management options. Following the public review and comment opportunity, EPA will conduct an independent, expert peer review of the draft document before it is finalized and published.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on November 9, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., eastern time. Persons wishing to attend the meeting in-person or online via webinar must register by November 3, 2015, as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. EPA will consider written comments received prior to November 23, 2015, when preparing the document for the external peer review.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the EPA Potomac Yard South Building, 1st Floor Conference Center (One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202). All attendees must show government-issued photo identification (e.g., a driver's license) when signing in. This meeting will be simultaneously broadcasted as a webinar, available on the Internet.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions, contact César Cordero, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at (202) 564-3716 or [email protected] For questions regarding registration for the public meeting, contact Sarah Rains at (703) 247-6195 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What is the scope and the intended audience of the draft document?

    The draft document provides an overview of Legionella ecology, physiology, occurrence and other topics relevant to the microorganism; an overview of systemic considerations for Legionella control; information on the current state of knowledge regarding the use and effectiveness of available control technologies for prevention and control of Legionella; a discussion about potential water quality issues that may result from the use of such technologies; and information on optimal operational conditions for the use of control technologies. Legionella control issues in cooling towers are beyond the scope of the document. The target audience for the document includes, but is not limited to, primacy agencies, building water system operators, building owners and technology developers and vendors.

    B. How can I get copies of the draft document and other related information, and submit written comments?

    The draft document and other related information will be available in the Water Docket, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0595, which is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket, available at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets.

    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0595, to the 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. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points that you wish to make about the scientific aspects of the Legionella control technologies.

    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    When preparing the document for external peer review, EPA will consider written comments received prior to November 23, 2015.

    C. How may I participate in this meeting/webinar?

    Persons wishing to attend the public meeting in-person or online via webinar must register in advance no later than 5:00 p.m., eastern time on November 3, 2015. To register, go online to Eventbrite at https://us-epa-legionella-drinking-water.eventbrite.com. Teleconferencing will be available for individuals participating via the webinar. The number of seats and webinar connections available for the meeting is limited and will be offered on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is strongly encouraged to ensure proper accommodations. EPA will do its best to include all those interested in either meeting in-person or online via webinar.

    At the public meeting, EPA will present an overview of the draft document and will solicit public comments about the scientific aspects of available Legionella control technologies. The agenda for the public meeting will include time for public comment. To ensure adequate time for public comment, individuals or organizations interested in making a statement should mention their intent when they register.

    Meeting Materials: Meeting materials will be sent by email to the registered attendees prior to the public meeting; copies will also be provided for attendees at the meeting and available in the Water Docket, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0595.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals with disabilities who wish to attend the meeting in person can request special accommodations by contacting Jini Mohanty at [email protected] Please allow at least five business days prior to the meeting to give EPA time to process your request.

    II. Background

    Legionella is a bacterium commonly found in aquatic environments. It grows best in warm water environments and can be found in premise plumbing in large buildings, hot tubs, hot water tanks, decorative fountains, large plumbing systems (such as might be found in hospitals) and cooling towers. People who breathe in a mist or vapor that has been contaminated with Legionella can contract Legionnaire's disease or Pontiac fever (both referred to as legionellosis). Legionellosis is a major health concern associated with drinking water. Cases of legionellosis and fatalities have been associated with the occurrence of Legionella in building water systems. In response to the threat to public health, some building owners have installed supplemental treatment systems to prevent and control for Legionella. Some states have requested technical assistance from EPA with regards to evaluating effectiveness of control technologies. The agency expects the final document will help to further improve public health by helping states, building owners and operators make science-based, risk management decisions regarding treatment and control of Legionella in buildings.

    III. How will the Agency finalize the document?

    Through this notice, EPA is announcing an opportunity for the public to provide input on the draft document in writing and/or verbally at the public meeting and webinar. EPA will conduct an independent, expert peer review following the public review and comment period.

    Comments from the public and external peer reviewers will be considered as EPA finalizes the document.

    IV. What input is the Agency seeking from the public?

    The Agency is particularly interested in input from the public related to the following questions:

    1. How well does the document accurately characterize the available, peer reviewed literature on the effectiveness of different technologies for control of Legionella?

    2. What is your perspective on whether the characterization of each technology is balanced and supported by the available, peer reviewed scientific information?

    3. What suggestions do you have to improve the document so that it can better support informed public health protection decisions and avoid or minimize unintended consequences?

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Kenneth J. Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26771 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9935-86-OAR] Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces an upcoming public meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The EPA established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy issues.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on November 18, 2015, tentatively from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The CAAAC will hold its face-to-face meeting at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City hotel, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Inspection of Committee Documents: The committee agenda, confirmed times for the meetings, and any documents prepared for these meetings will be publicly available on the CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting minutes, will also be available on the CAAAC Web site or by contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0075. The docket office can be reached by email at: [email protected] or FAX: 202-566-9744.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information about the CAAAC, please contact Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Interim Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 564-1676. Additional information about this meeting, the CAAAC, and its subcommittees and workgroups can be found on the CAAAC Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.

    For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Lorraine Reddick at (202) 564-1293 or [email protected], preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Interim Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26770 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9935-91-Region 1] Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement: Peabody Street Asbestos Superfund Site, Salem, Massachusetts AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Peabody Street Asbestos Superfund Site, located in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts with the settling parties Massachusetts Electric Company and National Grid USA. The proposed settlement requires the settling parties to pay $850,000, plus interest, to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. In exchange, EPA will provide the settling parties a covenant not to sue. The settlement has been approved by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice. For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement for recovery of response costs. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to this cost recovery settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the Salem Public Library, 370 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970 and at the Environmental Protection Agency—Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be addressed to Kevin Pechulis, Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OES04-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912 (Telephone No. 617-918-1612) and should reference the Peabody Street Asbestos Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Docket No: 01-2015-0052.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Stacy Greendlinger, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR02-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, (617) 918-1403; [email protected] Technical questions can also be directed to Stacy Greendlinger. For legal questions, Kevin Pechulis, Office of Environmental Stewardship, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OES04-3), Boston, MA 02109-3912, (617) 918-1612; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Peabody Street Asbestos Superfund Site, located in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts is made in accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i). The settling parties to this administrative settlement include: Massachusetts Electric Company and National Grid USA. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, and Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement for recovery of response costs (Section XIV of the proposed settlement).

    Dated: October 7, 2015. Nancy Barmakian, Acting Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26781 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-OGC-2015-0677; FRL 9935-89-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club and Physicians For Social Responsibility—Los Angeles (“Plaintiffs”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California: Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, No. 2:15-cv-3798-ODW (ASx) (C.D. CA.) (filed May 20, 2015). Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Jared Blumenfeld, in his official capacity as Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (collectively, “EPA”), failed to perform duties mandated by CAA to take final action to approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, the portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan that address attainment of the 2006 fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”) NAAQS, which California submitted to EPA on February 13, 2013. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take certain specified actions.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-OGC-2015-0677, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-5601; fax number: (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs seeking to compel EPA to take actions required under CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4). The Plaintiffs' lawsuit alleged that EPA has a mandatory duty to take final action to approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, the portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan that address attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. California made this SIP submission on February 13, 2013. The submission was complete by operation of law on August 13, 2013. Section 110(k)(2) requires EPA to take action on a SIP submission within one year of the date it is complete. The Plaintiffs allege that EPA had a mandatory duty to take action on the submission by August 13, 2014. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA must take final action no later than March 15, 2016, with respect to this claim. See the proposed consent decree for the specific details.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this proposed consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the proposed consent decree A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-OGC-2015-0677) contains a copy of the proposed partial consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26780 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9935-95-OA] Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held November 12 and 13, 2015 at the National Archives Museum (700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408) in the Jefferson Room. The CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental health.

    DATES:

    November 12 and 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408. Enter on 7th Street near Constitution Avenue.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martha Berger, Office of Children's Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2191 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. The CHPAC will meet on Thursday, November 12 from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday, November 13 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Jefferson Room. An agenda will be posted to epa.gov/children.

    Access and Accommodations: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Martha Berger at 202-564-2191 or [email protected], preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Martha Berger, Designated Federal Official.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26732 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting; Open Commission Meeting Thursday, October 22, 2015 October 15, 2015.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, October 22, 2015, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services (WC Docket No. 12-375). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would adopt comprehensive reform of intrastate, interstate, and international ICS calls to ensure just, reasonable and fair ICS rates, and seek comment on additional measures the Commission could take to ensure that interstate and intrastate ICS are provided consistent with the statute and public interest. 2 INTERNATIONAL AND MEDIA TITLE: Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (GN Docket No. 15-236). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would streamline the foreign ownership review process for broadcast licensees and applicants, and standardize the review process for broadcast, common carrier and aeronautical licensees and applicants. 3 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TITLE: Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions (GN Docket No. 12-268). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order addressing when and in what areas 600 MHz Band wireless licensees will be deemed to “commence operations” for the purposes of establishing when the secondary and unlicensed users must cease operations and vacate the 600 MHz Band in those areas. 4 OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TITLE: Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions (GN Docket No. 12-268); Office of Engineering and Technology Releases and Seeks Comment on Updated OET-69 Software (ET Docket No. 13-26); and Office of Engineering and Technology Seeks to Supplement the Incentive Auction Proceeding Record Regarding Potential Interference Between Broadcast Television and Wireless Services (ET Docket No. 14-14). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Third Report & Order and First Order on Reconsideration that adopts rules to govern inter-service interference between broadcast television stations and wireless licensees in the 600 MHz Band following the incentive auction and sets out protection criteria for television stations and wireless operations in the band. 5 MEDIA TITLE: Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions (GN Docket No. 12-268) and Channel Sharing by Full Power and Class A Stations Outside the Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Auction Context (MB Docket No. 15-137). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Second Order on Reconsideration to provide additional flexibility to broadcasters interested in the incentive auction channel sharing option by clarifying that “back-up” channel sharing agreements are permitted under the rules and providing more time for successful incentive auction bidders to transition to shared facilities after the auction. 6 CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS TITLE: Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program (CG Docket No. 10-51) and Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Disabilities (CG Docket No. 03-123). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on whether to modify, in part, the four-year compensation rate plan for video relay service (VRS) and whether to adopt measures that may enhance the functional equivalence of VRS. In the same item, the Commission will consider an Order to modify, in part, the currently applicable VRS compensation rates pending action on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 7 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INTERNATIONAL AND OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TITLE: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services (GN Docket No. 14-177); Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band (RM-11664); Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services; and Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands (WT Docket No. 10-112); Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations (IB Docket No. 97-95). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to create new flexible use service rules in certain bands above 24 GHz to support multiple uses, including mobile wireless.

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26799 Filed 10-19-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: Bowen Broadcasting, Inc., Station NEW, Facility ID 198781, BNPH-20150910ABY, From Bastrop, LA, To Calhoun, LA; Bridgelight, LLC, Station WJUX, Facility ID 43653, BPED-20150923ALI, From Monticello, NY, To South Fallsburg, NY; Catholic Radio Network, Inc., Station KQOH, Facility ID 76946, BPED-20150810AED, From Marshfield, MO, To Fair Grove, MO; Colt Communications, LLC, Station WNTN, Facility ID 48781, BP-20150730ACM, From Newton, MA, To Cambridge, MA; Contemporary Communications, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 198749, BNPH-20150928AAY, From Dermott, AR, To Moorhead, MS; De La Hunt, Edward Paul, Station KKWZ, Facility ID 165964, BPH-20151001AFK, From Crary, ND, To Rugby, ND; Flinn Broadcasting Corporation, Station KWLR, Facility ID 23849, BPH-20150804ABN, From Maumelle, AR, To Bigelow, AR; Genesis Communications Of Tampa Bay, Inc., Station WHBO, Facility ID 41383, BP-20150820ABA, From Pinellas Park, FL, To Largo, FL; Grundy County Broadcasters, Inc., Station WCSJ, Facility ID 17039, BP-20150828ABM, From Morris, IL, To Geneva, IL; Point Five, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 191522, BMPH-20150507ACA, From Barstow, CA, To Hinkley, CA; River Rat Radio, LLC., Station NEW, Facility ID 198737, BNPH-20150911AHR, From Quartzsite, AZ, To Parker Strip, AZ; Southeastern Oklahoma Radio, LLC, Station KTMC-FM, Facility ID 67592, BPH-20150831ABE, From Mcalester, OK, To Krebs, OK; Telesouth Communications, Inc., Station WTNM, Facility ID 51086, BPH-20150728ACE, From Oxford, MS, To Courtland, MS; Two Rivers Broadcasting, Inc., Station KQZZ, Facility ID 56710, BPH-20151001AFQ, From Devils Lake, ND, To Crary, ND; Walking By Faith Ministries, Inc., Station WAML, Facility ID 52617, BP-20150831ADB, From Laurel, MS, To Collins, MS.

    DATES:

    The agency must receive comments on or before December 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm.

    Federal Communications Commission. James D. Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26756 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.

    DATES:

    Thursday, November 5, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The agenda will include a discussion of current issues affecting community banking. The agenda is subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

    Type of Meeting: The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the committee before or after the meeting. This Community Banking Advisory Committee meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet at https://fdic.primetime.mediaplatform.com/#/channel/1384299242770/Advisory+Committee+on+Community+Banking+. Questions or troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal viewing, a high speed internet connection is recommended. The Community Banking meeting videos are made available on-demand approximately two weeks after the event.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26689 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected].

    Agreement No.: 010714-047.

    Title: Trans-Atlantic American Flag Liner Operators Agreement.

    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd.; American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier, LLC; Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC.; and Maersk Line A/S.

    Filing Party: Howard A. Levy, Esq.; 80 Wall Street, Suite 1117; New York, NY 10005.

    Synopsis: The amendment updates the addresses for Hapag-Lloyd and American Roll-On Roll-Off.

    Agreement No.: 011284-074.

    Title: Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association Agreement.

    Parties: Alianca Navegacao e Logistica Ltda.; APL Co. Pte Ltd.; American President Lines, Ltd.; CMA CGM, S.A.; Atlantic Container Line; China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd; China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; COSCO Container Lines Company Limited; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Hamburg-Süd; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hapag-Lloyd USA LLC; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Maersk Line A/S; Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services.

    Filing Party: Jeffrey F, Lawrence, Esq. and Donald J. Kassilke, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006.

    Synopsis: The Amendment deletes Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Compania Sud Americana de Vapores, SA.; Companhia Libra de Navegacao; Compania Libra de Navigacion Uruguay S.A.; and Norasia Container Lines Limited as parties to the Agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26761 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 13, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. JLL Associates G.P. FCH, LLC; JLL Associates FCH, L.P.; JLL Partners Fund FCH, L.P.; and JLL/FCH Holdings I, LLC, all of New York, New York; to acquire Pioneer Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire, Pioneer Bank SSB, both of Dripping Springs, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 15, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26629 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 3, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. The Donald Davis Living Trust, West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, and Kenneth Kelly as trustee, McDonough, Georgia; to acquire control of 25 percent or more of the voting shares of First Independence Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire control of First Independence Bank, both of Detroit, Michigan.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. HCR Trust U/A dated August 14, 1986, as amended, Excelsior, Minnesota, Beth Ann Brackett, Excelsior, Minnesota, Trustee, Michael M. Reget, Plymouth, Minnesota, Trustee, and Thomas Kaliher, Waconia, Minnesota, Trustee; to retain 25 percent or more of the shares of Hamburg Financial, Inc., Excelsior, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of State Bank of Hamburg, Hamburg, Minnesota and Poe Investment Company, Excelsior, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Sacred Heart, Sacred Heart, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 15, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26628 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting Agenda FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD MEMBER MEETING October 27, 2015 8:30 a.m. In-Person Meeting Open Session 1. Approval of the Minutes for the September 10, 2015 Board Member Meeting 2. Monthly Reports (a) Monthly Participant Activity Report (b) Legislative Report 3. Quarterly Reports (a) Investment Policy Report (b) Vendor Financials (c) Audit Status (d) Budget Review (e) Project Activity Report 4. Capital Market and L Fund 5. Investment Policy 6. Mid-Year Financial Review 7. ORM Report 8. Calendar Closed Session 9. Security Adjourn CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Megan Grumbine, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26857 Filed 10-19-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 141 0025] Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC and Orthopaedic Associates of Reading, Ltd.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/keyorthoconsentconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No.141-0025” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/keyorthoconsentconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No.141-0025” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Canterman (202-326-2701), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 15, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 16, 2015. Write “Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No.141-0025” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/keyorthoconsentconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No.141-0025” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 16, 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.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment I. Overview

    The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing a Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) with Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC (“Keystone”), and Orthopaedic Associates of Reading, Ltd. (“Orthopaedic Associates”) (together “Respondents”). The Consent Agreement settles charges that Respondents violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45.

    The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make it final.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way. Further, the Consent Agreement has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondents that they violated the law or that the facts alleged in the Complaint (other than jurisdictional facts) are true.

    II. Background and Market Structure

    Nineteen orthopedists affiliated with six independent orthopedic practices in Berks County, Pennsylvania, merged to form Keystone in January 2011 (the “Merger”). One of those practices is Respondent Orthopaedic Associates, and the other five practices are Advanced Orthopaedics of Reading, Arthritis & Joint Replacement Center of Reading, P.C., Berkshire Orthopedic Associates, Inc., Commonwealth Orthopaedic Associates, Inc., and Reading Neck and Spine Center, P.C. (“Keystone Component Practices”). The Keystone Component Practices became divisions of Keystone after the Merger.

    Before the Merger, competition among orthopedists in Berks County was robust. At that time, 25 orthopedists in 11 independent practices competed to provide orthopedic physician services. The Merger substantially eliminated this competition by combining 19 out of 25, or 76 percent, of the orthopedists practicing in Berks County into one practice. Only six other orthopedists remained as competitors. After the Merger, the Keystone orthopedists ceased to do business through their respective independent practices and began doing business exclusively through Keystone. Three years after the Merger, in 2014, six orthopedists left Keystone and resumed doing business as Orthopaedic Associates for business reasons independent of the Commission's investigation.

    III. The Relevant Markets

    The relevant line of commerce in which to analyze the Merger's effects is the provision of orthopedic physician services. Orthopedic physician services include surgery and other services provided by physicians who specialize as orthopedists to treat injuries and diseases of the musculoskeletal system.

    The relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of the Merger is Berks County, Pennsylvania. Patients in Berks County generally do not leave the county to obtain orthopedic physician services, and health plans are unable to serve their members in Berks County without including Berks County orthopedists in their provider networks.

    IV. Effects of the Merger

    Before the Merger, the Keystone Component Practices competed with each other, and health plans could form a network with some of the Keystone Component Practices. The Merger eliminated this competition and created a dominant orthopedic practice in Berks County. After the Merger, Keystone negotiated prices with health plans on behalf of all the previously competing Keystone Component Practices, and health plans could not offer a commercially marketable network that would appeal to Berks County residents without Keystone. Thus, Keystone gained substantial market power through the Merger, which it used to raise prices with most health plans with coverage in Berks County.

    V. Entry

    Recruiting new orthopedists to Berks County is difficult, expensive, and time intensive. Neither entry by new practices nor expansion by the remaining practices following the Merger has been timely or sufficient to offset the actual anticompetitive harm from the Merger. Nor is future entry to be timely, likely, or sufficient to do so.

    VI. Efficiencies

    The Merger has not produced merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to offset the actual anticompetitive harm from the Merger.

    VII. The Decision and Order

    The proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) is designed to maintain competition in the relevant market, including by prohibiting future anticompetitive consolidation, and by allowing health plans to cancel and renegotiate the contracts they entered with Keystone after the Merger was consummated.

    In evaluating the remedies in the proposed Order, it is important to note that market conditions have changed since the 2011 Merger. Market concentration levels are lower now than after the Merger was consummated in 2011 due to orthopedists leaving Keystone. Most significantly, for reasons independent of and pre-dating the Commission's investigation, six orthopedists separated from Keystone in 2014 and resumed doing business separately and independently as Orthopaedic Associates. Following the separation, Orthopaedic Associates has become a major player in the market with eight orthopedists. Keystone, in contrast, currently has 11 orthopedists, down from 19 when the Merger was consummated.

    Had Orthopaedic Associates remained a part of Keystone, the Commission likely would have sought divestiture. As it is, the unique circumstance of Orthopaedic Associates' separation from Keystone for business reasons pre-dating the Commission's investigation resulted in structural changes that factored into the Commission's decision not to pursue further structural relief. But a recombination of the two groups could raise serious antitrust concern. Therefore, the proposed Order is designed to maintain competition in the relevant market by, among other things, preserving the Orthopaedic Associates' separation, and by allowing health plans to avail themselves of current market conditions by renegotiating existing Keystone contracts. Orthopaedic Associates is a named Respondent because its orthopedists helped form Keystone and benefitted from Keystone's post-merger price increases. Moreover, putting Orthopaedic Associates under Order is necessary to obtain appropriate relief, as discussed below.

    Paragraph II of the proposed Order preserves Orthopaedic Associates' separation by requiring Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to obtain prior approval from the Commission before acquiring any interest in each other.

    Paragraph III requires Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to obtain prior approval from the Commission before either practice may acquire another orthopedic practice located in Berks County. Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates also must obtain prior approval before entering into any employment, membership, or other agreement of affiliation with an orthopedist who during the prior year provided services in Berks County.

    The proposed Order also prohibits Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates from engaging in illegal concerted activity apart from merging or acquiring other practices in Berks County. Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, mergers may harm competition where a “market shows signs of vulnerability to coordinated conduct.” In this case, the Commission is concerned that the effects of this consummated merger could linger because of the close ties developed between Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates. Keystone and the orthopedists affiliated with Orthopaedic Associates jointly negotiated with payors and shared price information for over three years before the Orthopaedic Associates orthopedists left Keystone. Therefore, Paragraph IV includes provisions prohibiting certain joint activity among competing orthopedists who are members of or employed by Keystone or Orthopaedic Associates in order to limit the risk of coordination.

    Paragraph IV.A prohibits Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates from jointly negotiating or refusing to deal with payors, and from engaging in this conduct with other orthopedists in Berks County. Paragraph IV.B prohibits Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates from facilitating exchanges of information among orthopedists concerning whether, and on what terms, to contract with a payor. Paragraph IV.C bars attempts to engage in any action prohibited by Paragraphs IV.A or IV.B. Paragraph IV.D proscribes inducing anyone to engage in any action prohibited by Paragraphs IV.A through IV.C.

    Certain kinds of agreements that do not raise antitrust concerns are excluded from the general bar on joint negotiations. Paragraph IV does not preclude Keystone or Orthopaedic Associates from engaging in conduct that is reasonably necessary to form or participate in “qualified risk-sharing” or “qualified clinically-integrated” joint arrangements, as defined in the Order. Paragraph V requires Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to notify the Commission before initiating certain contacts regarding contracts with payors pursuant to these joint arrangements. Paragraph V also sets out the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirement.

    Paragraph VI imposes other notification obligations on Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates and requires the termination of certain contracts that were entered into after the Merger. Paragraphs VI.A and VI.B require Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to distribute the Complaint and Order to their respective orthopedist members and personnel identified in the Order, and to each payor that they have a record of having been in contact with since January 1, 2010.

    Paragraph VI.C requires Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to terminate, without penalty, any existing contracts with payors for the provision of orthopedic physician services at the earlier of a written request from a payor to terminate or the earliest termination or renewal date under the contract. Paragraph VI.C also allows a payor to extend a contract beyond the termination or renewal date for a period of no longer than one year from the date the order becomes final to allow payors sufficient time to renegotiate contracts with Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates. The contract termination requirement allows payors to avail themselves of current conditions in renegotiating contracts, where Keystone is no longer the dominant provider. Paragraph VI.D requires Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to distribute payor requests for contract termination to their respective orthopedist members. Paragraph VI.E requires Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to provide new orthopedists, payors, and various personnel not previously receiving a copy, a copy of the Order and the Complaint.

    Paragraphs VII, VIII, and IX impose various obligations on Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates to report or provide access to information to the Commission to facilitate the monitoring of compliance with the Order. Finally, Paragraph X provides that the Order will expire in 10 years from the date it is issued.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26690 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-CX-2015-01; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence 21] SES Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    General Services Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the appointment of new members to the General Services Administration Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in the performance appraisal process.

    DATES:

    Effective: October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Antonia T. Harris, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources Management, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-0398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 4314(c)(1), through (5) of title 5 U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review board(s). The board is responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authority on the performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for the Senior Executive Service employees.

    The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the General Services Administration:

    Adam Neufeld, Deputy Administrator—Chair.

    Antonia Harris, Chief Human Capital Officer.

    Jerome Fletcher, Associate Administrator for Small Business Utilization.

    Christine Harada, Associate Administrator for Governmentwide Policy.

    Thomas Sharpe, Jr., Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.

    Kevin Youel Page, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service.

    Norman Dong, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.

    Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.

    Giancarlo Brizzi, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator for Governmentwide Policy.

    Joanna Rosato, Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, Mid-Atlantic Region.

    Kim Brown, Regional Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, Great Lakes Region.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Denise T. Roth, Administrator, General Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26661 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket Number CDC-2015-0090; NIOSH 248-C] Meeting: World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (WTCHP STAC or Advisory Committee), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 2015

    Place: Jacob J. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278. This meeting is also available by teleconference. The USA toll-free, dial-in number is 1-888-455-9749, and when prompted enter passcode—6542002. To view the web conference, enter the following web address in your web browser: https://odniosh.adobeconnect.com/wtchpstac/.

    Public Comment Time and Date: 11:20 a.m.-12 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, December 1, 2015

    Please note that the public comment period ends at the time indicated above or following the last call for comments, whichever is earlier. Members of the public who want to comment must sign up by providing their name by mail, email, or telephone, at the addresses provided below by November 27, 2015. Each commenter will be provided up to five minutes for comment. A limited number of time slots are available and will be assigned on a first come-first served basis. Written comments will also be accepted from those unable to attend the public session.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the number of telephone lines. The conference line will accommodate up to 50 callers; therefore it is suggested that those interested in calling in to listen to the committee meeting share a line when possible.

    Background: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 111-347 (The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Title XXXIII of the Public Health Service Act), enacted on January 2, 2011 and codified at 42 U.S.C. 300mm-300mm-61.

    Purpose: The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to review scientific and medical evidence and to make recommendations to the Administrator of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program regarding additional WTC Health Program eligibility criteria and potential additions to the list of covered WTC-related health conditions, as well as providing consultation on research to the Administrator of the World Trade Center Health Program. Title XXXIII of the Public Health Service Act established within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, to be administered by the Administrator of the World Trade Center Health Program. The WTC Health Program provides: (1) Medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers (including those who are Federal employees) who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and (2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers in New York City, who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks (“survivors”). Certain specific activities of the Administrator of the World Trade Center Health Program are reserved to the Secretary, HHS, to delegate at her discretion; other duties of the Administrator of the World Trade Center Health Program not explicitly reserved to the Secretary, HHS, ar