Federal Register Vol. 80, No.205,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 205 (October 23, 2015)

Page Range64305-65119
FR Document

80_FR_205
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 64354 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 64312 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop Engines (Type Certificate Previously Held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona)PDF
80 FR 65117 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to the Democratic Republic of the CongoPDF
80 FR 64305 - Delegation of Authority for Drafting and Submission of the International Trade Data System Annual Report to the CongressPDF
80 FR 64491 - Caldwell Railroad Commission-Abandonment Exemption-in Caldwell County, NCPDF
80 FR 64416 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 64385 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Citrus From PeruPDF
80 FR 64386 - Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Pitahaya From Israel Into the Continental United StatesPDF
80 FR 64443 - U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Advisory Committee Request for NomineesPDF
80 FR 64387 - Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, and Swine Vesicular Disease Status of CroatiaPDF
80 FR 64443 - Indian GamingPDF
80 FR 64442 - Indian GamingPDF
80 FR 64392 - Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 64454 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Locating and Paying ParticipantsPDF
80 FR 64449 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Sematech, Inc. D/B/A International SematechPDF
80 FR 64398 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 64399 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 64453 - Information Collection: Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters Under Section 274PDF
80 FR 64435 - National Boating Safety Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 64400 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 64409 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 64415 - Petition of Pacific International Lines and Mariana Express Lines for an Exemption From Commission Regulations; Notice of Filing and Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 64491 - Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.-Acquisition of Control Exemption-Rock & Rail, Inc.PDF
80 FR 64448 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.PDF
80 FR 64448 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Separation Technology Research ProgramPDF
80 FR 64449 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Advanced Engine FluidsPDF
80 FR 64449 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-AllSeen Alliance, Inc.PDF
80 FR 64433 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0095PDF
80 FR 64450 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc.PDF
80 FR 64437 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0112PDF
80 FR 64508 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce BenefitsPDF
80 FR 64477 - Final Designation of the Highway Primary Freight NetworkPDF
80 FR 64404 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, California, General ReevaluationPDF
80 FR 64409 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for August 2015PDF
80 FR 64418 - Medicare Program; Expansion of Prior Authorization for Repetitive Scheduled Non-Emergent Ambulance TransportsPDF
80 FR 64490 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
80 FR 64319 - Appointment of Foreign Service OfficersPDF
80 FR 64353 - Change of Address for the Interior Board of Indian AppealsPDF
80 FR 64448 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Petroleum Environmental Research ForumPDF
80 FR 64437 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant ApplicationPDF
80 FR 64438 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund Established Pursuant to the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996PDF
80 FR 64434 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0016PDF
80 FR 64430 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0001PDF
80 FR 64431 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0035PDF
80 FR 64434 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0014PDF
80 FR 64429 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0039PDF
80 FR 64307 - Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United StatesPDF
80 FR 64401 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 64403 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 64415 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 64307 - Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary OrganizationsPDF
80 FR 64454 - Submission for Review: Health Benefits Election FormPDF
80 FR 64396 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Online WebinarPDF
80 FR 64395 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council); Public HearingsPDF
80 FR 64394 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 64394 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 64396 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
80 FR 64370 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential FurnacesPDF
80 FR 64370 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending MachinesPDF
80 FR 64445 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement Non-Federal Oil and Gas RegulationsPDF
80 FR 64405 - Meeting; President's Council of Advisors on Science and TechnologyPDF
80 FR 64445 - Notice of Meeting, Northwest Resource Advisory Council's Travel Management Sub-GroupPDF
80 FR 64399 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 64446 - Commerce in Explosives; 2015 Annual List of Explosive MaterialsPDF
80 FR 64416 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 64491 - Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis-Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyPDF
80 FR 64421 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Device Labeling RegulationsPDF
80 FR 64422 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance on Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually IdentifiablePDF
80 FR 64477 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
80 FR 64444 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 64394 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 64493 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Transportation/ALL 8, Parking and Transit Benefit SystemPDF
80 FR 64495 - Funding Opportunity Title: Notice of Allocation Availability (NOAA) Inviting Applications for the Calendar Year (CY) 2015 Allocation Round of the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) ProgramPDF
80 FR 64324 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; York River, Yorktown, VAPDF
80 FR 64382 - International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Treatment of U.S. Purse Seine Fishing With Respect to U.S. TerritoriesPDF
80 FR 64451 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Prohibited Transaction Exemption 1990-1, Insurance Company Pooled Separate AccountsPDF
80 FR 64406 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 64406 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 64407 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 64318 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Vancouver, WAPDF
80 FR 64317 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Vidalia, LAPDF
80 FR 64450 - Employment and Training AdministrationPDF
80 FR 64316 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Vincennes, INPDF
80 FR 64416 - Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of an Updated System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 64475 - North American Free Trade Agreement; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the Chapter 19 RosterPDF
80 FR 64344 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment-Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntoshPDF
80 FR 64505 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2011-4, Revenue Procedure 2011-5, Revenue Procedure 2011-6, and Revenue Procedure 2011-8PDF
80 FR 64506 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2009-31 and Revenue Procedure 2009-43PDF
80 FR 64428 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 64429 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 64429 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 64428 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 64428 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 64425 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 64425 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting.PDF
80 FR 64455 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 64423 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Device Recall AuthorityPDF
80 FR 64421 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting ProgramPDF
80 FR 64324 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River, Marysville, WAPDF
80 FR 64507 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 5498-QA and 1099-QAPDF
80 FR 64468 - Investment Company Act Release No. 31870; File No. 812-14536 Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and AAM ETF Trust; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 64469 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 64464 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Mini OptionsPDF
80 FR 64458 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Series 28 Examination ProgramPDF
80 FR 64465 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Series 27 Examination ProgramPDF
80 FR 64456 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the New Securities Trader Qualification Examination (Series 57)PDF
80 FR 64462 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Options Floor Broker Management SystemPDF
80 FR 64461 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund SharesPDF
80 FR 64507 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Office of Investment SecurityPDF
80 FR 64456 - Removal of Global Direct Contracts From the Competitive Product ListPDF
80 FR 64423 - Public Meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical IssuesPDF
80 FR 64424 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 64474 - Washington Disaster #WA-00060PDF
80 FR 64474 - South Carolina Disaster #SC-00032PDF
80 FR 64408 - Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 64408 - Joint Meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Notice of Joint Meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPDF
80 FR 64397 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Horseshoe Crabs; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit, 2015; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 64472 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 64473 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 64474 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 64385 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 64378 - Definition of Terms Relating to Marital StatusPDF
80 FR 64440 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of PermitsPDF
80 FR 64441 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 64452 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 64381 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
80 FR 64309 - Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance Programs-Specific Administrative Provisions for the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants ProgramPDF
80 FR 64325 - Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National PreservesPDF
80 FR 64415 - Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 64373 - Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 64439 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 64371 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 64375 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 64361 - Acquisition Regulations: Export ControlPDF
80 FR 64492 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation; DOT/ALL-18, International Freight Data System (IFDS)PDF
80 FR 64314 - Airworthiness Directives; Technify Motors GmbH Reciprocating EnginesPDF
80 FR 64312 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 64346 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Open Burning Rules and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Enforcement ProceduresPDF
80 FR 64381 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Open Burning Rules and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Enforcement ProceduresPDF
80 FR 64354 - Broadcast Licensee-Conducted ContestsPDF
80 FR 64965 - Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework RegulationsPDF
80 FR 64661 - Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating UnitsPDF
80 FR 64509 - Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating UnitsPDF

Issue

80 205 Friday, October 23, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 64385 2015-26891 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Commerce in Explosives; 2015 Annual List of Explosive Materials, 64446-64448 2015-26994 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Imports: Fresh Peppers from Ecuador, 64307-64309 2015-27013 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Importation of Citrus from Peru, 64385-64386 2015-27099 Classical Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, and Swine Vesicular Disease Status of Croatia, 64387-64392 2015-27092 Importation Authorizations: Fresh Pitahaya from Israel, 64386-64387 2015-27097 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Membership Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc., 64448-64449 2015-27046 AllSeen Alliance, Inc., 64449 2015-27043 Cooperative Research Group on Advanced Engine Fluids, 64449-64450 2015-27044 Cooperative Research Group on Separation Technology Research Program, 64448 2015-27045 Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc., 64450 2015-27040 Petroleum Environmental Research Forum, 64448 2015-27024 Sematech, Inc. d/b/a International Sematech, 64449 2015-27081 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-27078 64398-64399 2015-27079 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare Program: Expansion of Prior Authorization for Repetitive Scheduled Non Emergent Ambulance Transports, 64418-64421 2015-27030 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Snohomish River, Marysville, WA, 64324-64325 2015-26922 York River, Yorktown, VA, 64324 2015-26969 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 64429-64435, 64437 2015-27016 2015-27017 2015-27018 2015-27019 2015-27020 2015-27038 2015-27041 Meetings: National Boating Safety Advisory Council, 64435-64436 2015-27056 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Availability: New Markets Tax Credit Program, 64495-64505 2015-26971 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 64399-64400 2015-26996 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Health Board, 64403-64404 2015-27011 Judicial Proceedings Panel, 64400-64401 2015-27055 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 64401-64403 2015-27012
Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Handbook 361, Unemployment Insurance Data Validation, 64450-64451 2015-26944 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Acquisition Regulations: Export Control, 64361-64369 2015-26476 PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 64370 2015-27001 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces, 64370-64371 2015-27002 NOTICES Meetings: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 64405-64406 2015-26998
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Sacramento River Flood Control Project, CA, General Reevaluation, 64404-64405 2015-27032 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment, Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh, 64344-64346 2015-26935 Oregon: Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Open Burning Rules and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Enforcement Procedures, 64346-64353 2015-26159 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 64662-64964 2015-22842 Standards of Performance: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources -- Electric Utility Generating Units, 64510-64660 2015-22837 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Open Burning Rules and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Enforcement Procedures, 64381 2015-26145 Federal Plan Requirements: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations, 64966-65116 2015-22848 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for August 2015, 64409-64415 2015-27031 Charter Renewals: Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, 64415 2015-26769 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 64409 2015-27054 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop Engines (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona), 64312 C1--2015--25606 Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines, 64312-64314 2015-26346 Technify Motors GmbH Reciprocating Engines, 64314-64316 2015-26347 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Vancouver, WA, 64318-64319 2015-26948 Vidalia, LA, 64317-64318 2015-26947 Revocation of Class E Airspace: Vincennes, IN, 64316-64317 2015-26943 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 64371-64373, 64375-64378 2015-26611 2015-26691 Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines, 64373-64375 2015-26755 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Broadcast Licensee-Conducted Contests, 64354-64361 2015-26093 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 64381-64382 2015-26872 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 64354 C1--2015--26449 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Dominion Transmission, Inc., 64408-64409 2015-26899 Combined Filings, 64406-64408 2015-26959 2015-26960 2015-26961 Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 64408 2015-26898 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers, 2015-26984 64477, 64490 2015-27027 Final Designation of the Highway Primary Freight Network, 64477-64490 2015-27036 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions: Pacific International Lines and Mariana Express Lines, 64415 2015-27053 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 64415-64416 2015-27010 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 64416 2015-26990 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 64416 2015-27128 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits, 64440-64441 2015-26878 Receipt of Applications for Permit, 64441-64442 2015-26877 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance on Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually Identifiable, 64422-64423 2015-26985 Medical Device Labeling Regulations, 64421 2015-26986 Medical Device Recall Authority, 64423 2015-26924 MedWatch - The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program, 64421 2015-26923 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 64416-64418 2015-26940 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability, 64424-64425 2015-26904 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 64423-64424 2015-26905
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application, 64437-64438 2015-27023 Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund Established Pursuant to the Church Arson Prevention Act, 64438-64439 2015-27022 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 64439-64440 2015-26750 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming, 2015-27080 2015-27082 64442-64443 2015-27088 2015-27090 2015-27091 Indian Health Indian Health Service RULES Change of Address for the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, 64353 2015-27025 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Advisory Committee, 64443-64444 2015-27095
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Definition of Terms Relating to Marital Status, 64378-64381 2015-26890 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-26921 2015-26933 64505-64507 2015-26934 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China, 64392-64394 2015-27089 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibited Transaction Exemption 1990-1, Insurance Company Pooled Separate Accounts, 64451-64452 2015-26967
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council, 64444 2015-26978 Northwest Resource Advisory Council Travel Management Sub-Group, 64445 2015-26997 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 64452-64453 2015-26876 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture RULES Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance Programs: Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants Program; Administrative Provisions, 64309-64312 2015-26848 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 64425-64427 2015-26927 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 64428 2015-26928 National Eye Institute, 64425 2015-26926 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 64429 2015-26931 National Institute of Mental Health, 64428-64429 2015-26932 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 64428-64429 2015-26929 2015-26930 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES International Fisheries: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Treatment of U.S. Purse Seine Fishing with Respect to U.S. Territories, 64382-64384 2015-26968 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 64394-64395 2015-26975 Exempted Fishing Permit Applications, 64396-64397 2015-27003 Exempted Fishing Permit; Applications: Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Horseshoe Crabs, 64397-64398 2015-26897 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 64394 2015-27004 New England Fishery Management Council, 64394 2015-27005 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Online Webinar, 64396 2015-27007 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 64395-64396 2015-27006 National Park National Park Service RULES Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves: Alaska, 64325-64344 2015-26813 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Non-federal Oil and Gas Regulations, 64445-64446 2015-26999 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States and in Offshore Waters Under Section 274, 64453-64454 2015-27064 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Locating and Paying Participants, 64454 2015-27083 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations, 64307 2015-27009 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Health Benefits Election Form, 64454-64455 2015-27008 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 64455-64456 2015-26925 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Removal of Global Direct Contracts from the Competitive Product List, 64456 2015-26906 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Congo, Democratic Republic of the; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of October 21, 2015), 65117-65119 2015-27275 International Trade Data System Annual Report to Congress, Drafting and Submission; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of October 20, 2015), 64305 2015-27167 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and AAM ETF Trust, 64468-64469 2015-26917 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 64469-64472 2015-26916 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 64456-64461, 64465-64468 2015-26912 2015-26913 2015-26914 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 64462-64465 2015-26911 2015-26915 NYSE Arca, Inc., 64461-64462 2015-26910 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-26892 2015-26893 2015-26894 2015-26895 64472-64474 2015-26896 Disaster Declarations: South Carolina, 64474-64475 2015-26902 Washington, 64474 2015-26903 State Department State Department RULES Appointment of Foreign Service Officers, 64319-64324 2015-27026 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Caldwell Railroad Commission, Caldwell County, N.C., 64491-64492 2015-27142 Acquisition of Control Exemptions: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.; Rock & Rail, Inc., 64491 2015-27052 Trackage Rights Exemptions: Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis from Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 64491 2015-26987 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Requests for Applications: North American Free Trade Agreement; Inclusion on the Chapter 19 Roster, 64475-64476 2015-26936 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 64492-64495 2015-26366 2015-26974
Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of Investment Security, 64507-64508 2015-26909 Multiemployer Pension Plan Application to Reduce Benefits, 64508 2015-27037
Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 64510-64660 2015-22837 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 64662-64964 2015-22842 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency, 64966-65116 2015-22848 Part V Presidential Documents, 65117-65119 2015-27275 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.

80 205 Friday, October 23, 2015 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 950 RIN 3206-AM68 Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to change the effective date of previously published Combined Federal Campaign regulations to January 1, 2017.

DATES:

The effective date of the regulations published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21581) is delayed until January 1, 2017.

Regarding funds contributed to the CFC during the 2016 campaign year, LFCCs and PCFOs will continue to operate, disburse funds, and submit to compliance requirements in accordance with regulations in 5 CFR part 950 as amended at 71 FR 67284, Nov. 20, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Capule by telephone at (202) 606-2564; by FAX at (202) 606-5056; or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 17, 2015 to amend 5 CFR part 950 to change the effective date of the new rule from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2017. During the comment period, OPM received two comments, including one from a Federal agency and one from a Local Federal Coordinating Committee (LFCC). These comments are addressed below.

The Department of Defense expressed its support for the amendment to allow additional time to test new systems before they are deployed. The Greater Arkansas CFC LFCC requested clarification on the process by which a contract will be awarded to a vendor to serve as the Central Campaign Administrator and the method by which the system will be tested.

The revision involves the change of the effective date of the new CFC regulations published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014. The new effective date for the CFC regulations would ensure that the tools need to put these reforms in place—including the pivotal online charity application and donor pledging systems—are thoroughly tested and fully operational before being made available to charities and donors.

On August 17, 2015 (80 FR 49173), OPM published a proposed rule with requests for public comment in the Federal Register. The Agency received two comments, neither of which opposed the change of date. It is therefore publishing the proposed rule as final without change.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Charitable organizations applying to the CFC have an existing, independent obligation to comply with the eligibility and public accountability standards contained in current CFC regulations. Streamlining these standards will be less burdensome.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, Regulatory Review

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 950

Administrative practice and procedures, Charitable contributions, Government employees, Military personnel, Nonprofit organizations and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-27009 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-58-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086] RIN 0579-AE07 Importation of Fresh Peppers From Ecuador Into the United States AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit will have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit will also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements in the systems approach. This action allows for the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

DATES:

Effective November 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-73, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

On April 24, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 22930-22934, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow the common bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.), locoto pepper (Capsicum baccatum L.), habanero pepper (Capsicum chinense Jacq.), tabasco pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.), and manzano pepper (Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) to be imported into the United States under a systems approach. (Hereafter we refer to these species as “peppers.”) We also prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). The PRA evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the United States of fresh peppers from Ecuador.

1 To view the proposed rule and supporting documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0086.

In the proposed rule, we noted that the PRA rated six plant pests as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of peppers from Ecuador into the United States: The insects Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, Spodoptera litura, Thrips palmi, and Tuta absoluta, and the fungus Puccinia pampeana. The PRA rated the insect Neoleucinodes elegantalis and the Andean potato mottle virus with a medium pest risk potential.

We determined in the PRA that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection will mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests and proposed a systems approach that includes requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. We also proposed that the fruit be imported in commercial consignments only and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the systems approach.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 23, 2015. We did not receive any comments.

We have made one minor change to this final rule, i.e., we have added tomato leaf miner as another common name associated with the plant pest Tuta absoluta.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the change noted.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

This rule amends the regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States when a systems approach to pest risk mitigation is used to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. The systems approach will integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.

The most recent production data available show that fresh pepper yields in Ecuador have expanded from approximately 12,522 pounds per hectare (pounds/ha) in 1996 to approximately 66,361 pounds/ha in 2006. The total quantity of fresh peppers that were exported from Ecuador in 2006 and 2007 was 96.3 metric tons (MT) and 206.5 MT, respectively. Sea shipping containers that are 40 feet in length hold approximately 20 U.S. MT. Considering the total volume exported from Ecuador during these years, APHIS estimates imports of no more than 10 containers (200 MT) of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States annually. This quantity is equivalent to less than 0.02 percent of annual U.S. fresh pepper production. Similarly, the estimated quantity of fresh pepper imports from Ecuador (200 MT annually) is minimal compared to the total quantity of fresh peppers imported by the United States in recent years (800,000 MT annually).

In the United States, the average value of bell pepper production per farm in 2012 was approximately $52,300, and the average value of chili pepper production per farm was approximately $20,700. Both levels are well below the small-entity standard of $750,000. Establishments classified within NAICS 111219, including pepper farms, are considered small by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if annual sales are not more than $750,000. Accordingly, pepper growers are predominantly small entities according to the SBA standard. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows fresh pepper fruit to be imported into the United States from Ecuador. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh pepper fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0437, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319-FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. Section 319.56-74 is added to read as follows:
§ 319.56-74 Peppers from Ecuador.

Fresh peppers (Capsicum annum L., Capsicum baccatum L., Capsicum chinense Jacq., Capsicum frutescens L., and Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) from Ecuador may be imported into the United States only under the conditions described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pests: Andean potato mottle virus; Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly; Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), Mediterranean fruit fly; Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée), a fruit boring moth; Puccinia pampeana Speg., a pathogenic fungus that causes pepper and green pepper rust; Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), a leaf-eating moth; Thrips palmi Karny, an arthropod; and Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) Povolny, South American tomato moth, tomato leaf miner.

(a) General requirements. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. The operational workplan must include and describe the specific requirements as set forth in this section.

(b) Commercial consignments. Peppers from Ecuador may be imported in commercial consignments only.

(c) Production site requirements. (1) Pepper production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary structures, which must have double self-closing doors and have all other windows, openings, and vents covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.

(2) All production sites that participate in the pepper export program must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

(3) The production sites must be inspected prior to each harvest by the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee in accordance with the operational workplan. If any quarantine pests are found to be generally infesting or infecting the production site, the NPPO of Ecuador will immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the United States and notify APHIS of this action. The prohibition will remain in effect until the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS agree that the pest risk has been mitigated. If a designee conducts the program, the designation must be detailed in the operational workplan. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

(4) The registered production sites must conduct trapping for the fruit flies A. fraterculus and C. capitata at each production site in accordance with the operational workplan.

(5) If a single A. fraterculus or C. capitata is detected inside a registered production site or in a consignment, the NPPO of Ecuador must immediately prohibit that production site from exporting peppers to the United States and notify APHIS of the action. The prohibition will remain in effect until the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS agree that the risk has been mitigated.

(6) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records must be maintained for APHIS review for at least 1 year.

(7) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.

(d) Packinghouse procedures. (1) All packinghouses that participate in the export program must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

(2) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit into the United States. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States or the consignment will be denied entry into the United States.

(3) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept peppers from registered approved production sites.

(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing the additional declaration that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of this section. The shipping box must be labeled with the identity of the production site.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0437)
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of October 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-27013 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture 7 CFR Part 3430 RIN 0524-AA65 Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance Programs—Specific Administrative Provisions for the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants Program AGENCY:

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is publishing a final rule for the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants Program. This final rule adds a subpart entitled “Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants Program” to the part entitled “Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Provisions”.

DATES:

This final rule becomes effective on October 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Scott-Morring, Policy Branch Chief, Policy and Oversight Division, Phone: 202-401-4515, Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Summary Authority

The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program (FINI) is authorized under section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7517), as added by section 4208 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79).

Organization of 7 CFR Part 3430

A primary function of NIFA is the fair, effective, and efficient administration of Federal assistance programs implementing agricultural research, education, and extension programs. The awards made under the above authority are subject to the NIFA assistance regulations at 7 CFR part 3430, Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Provisions. NIFA's development and publication of this part serve to enhance its accountability and to standardize procedures across the Federal assistance programs it administers while providing transparency to the public. NIFA published 7 CFR part 3430 with subparts A through E as a final rule on September 4, 2009 [74 FR 45736-45752]. These regulations apply to all Federal assistance programs administered by NIFA except for the capacity grant programs identified in 7 CFR 3430.1(f), the Small Business Innovation Research programs, with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3403, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.

NIFA organized part 3430 as follows: Subparts A through E provide administrative provisions for all competitive and noncompetitive non-capacity Federal assistance programs. Subparts F and thereafter apply to specific NIFA programs.

NIFA is, to the extent practical, using the following subpart template for each program authority: (1) Applicability of regulations; (2) purpose; (3) definitions (those in addition to or different from § 3430.2); (4) eligibility; (5) project types and priorities; (6) funding restrictions; and (7) matching requirements. Subparts F and thereafter contain the above seven components in this order. Additional sections may be added for a specific program if there are additional requirements or a need for additional rules for the program (e.g., additional reporting requirements). Through this rulemaking, NIFA is adding subpart P for the administrative provisions that are specific to the FINI program.

II. Administrative Requirements for the Rulemaking Executive Order 12866

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; nor will it materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; nor will it have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way. Further, it does not raise a novel legal or policy issue arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Department certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not involve regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Department concludes that this final rule does not impose any new information requirements or increase the burden hours. In addition to the SF-424 form families (i.e., Research and Related and Mandatory) and the SF-425 Federal Financial Report (FFR) No. 0348-0061, NIFA has three currently approved OMB information collections associated with this rulemaking: OMB Information Collection No. 0524-0042, NIFA REEport; No. 0524-0041, NIFA Application Review Process; and No. 0524-0026, Assurance of Compliance with the Department of Agriculture Regulations Assuring Civil Rights Compliance and Organizational Information.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

This final rule applies to the following Federal financial assistance programs administered by NIFA: CFDA No. 10.331 Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants Program.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 13132

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order No. 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has found no potential or 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 there is no Federal mandate contained herein that could result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The Department invites comments on how to make this final rule easier to understand.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3430

Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural research, Grant programs—agriculture, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 3430 is amended as set forth below:

PART 3430—COMPETITIVE AND NONCOMPETITIVE NON-FORMULA FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS—GENERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 3430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 3316; Pub. L. 106-107 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

2. Add subpart P to read as follows: Subpart P—Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program Sec. 3430.1100 Applicability of regulations. 3430.1101 Purpose. 3430.1102 Definitions. 3430.1103 Eligibility. 3430.1104 Project types and priorities. 3430.1105 Funding restrictions. 3430.1106 Matching requirements. 3430.1107 Program requirements. 3430.1108 Priorities. Subpart P—Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program
§ 3430.1100 Applicability of regulations.

The regulations in this subpart apply to the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grants program authorized under section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7517), as added by section 4208 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79).

§ 3430.1101 Purpose.

The primary goal of the FINI grants program is to fund and evaluate projects intended to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables by low-income consumers participating in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by providing incentives at the point of purchase.

§ 3430.1102 Definitions.

The definitions applicable to the FINI grants program under this subpart include:

Community food assessment means a collaborative and participatory process that systematically examines a broad range of community food issues and assets, so as to inform change actions to make the community more food secure.

Emergency feeding organization means a public or nonprofit organization that administers activities and projects (including the activities and projects of a charitable institution, a food bank, a food pantry, a hunger relief center, a soup kitchen, or a similar public or private nonprofit eligible recipient agency) providing nutrition assistance to relieve situations of emergency and distress through the provision of food to needy persons, including low-income and unemployed persons. (See 7 U.S.C. 7501).

Exemplary practices means high quality community food security work that emphasizes food security, nutritional quality, environmental stewardship, and economic and social equity.

Expert reviewers means individuals selected from among those recognized as uniquely qualified by training and experience in their respective fields to give expert advice on the merit of grant applications in such fields who evaluate eligible proposals submitted to this program in their respective area(s) of expertise.

Food security means access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food for all people at all times.

Fruits and vegetables means, for the purposes of the incentives provided under these grants, any variety of fresh, canned, dried, or frozen whole or cut fruits and vegetables without added sugars, fats or oils, and salt (i.e. sodium).

Logic model means a systematic and visual way to present and share an understanding of the relationships among resources available to operate a program, and includes: Planned activities and anticipated results; and the presentation of the resources, inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts.

Outcomes means the changes in the wellbeing of individuals that can be attributed to a particular project, program, or policy, or that a program hopes to achieve over time. They indicate a measurable change in participant knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors.

Process evaluation means examining program activities in terms of:

(1) The age, sex, race, occupation, or other demographic variables of the target population;

(2) The program's organization, funding, and staffing; and

(3) The program's location and timing. Process evaluation focuses on program activities rather than outcomes.

PromiseZone refers to designated high-poverty communities “where the federal government will partner with and invest in communities to create jobs, leverage private investment, increase economic activity, expand educational opportunities, and improve public safety.” See https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/.

Nonprofit organization means a special type of organizationthat has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for nonprofit status, your organizationmust be formed to benefit:

(1) The public;

(2) A specific group of individuals; or

(3) The membership of the nonprofit.

StrikeForce means the “USDA's StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth and Opportunity, which works to address the unique set of challenges faced by many of America's rural communities. Through StrikeForce, USDA is leveraging resources and collaborating with partners and stakeholders to improve economic opportunity and quality of life in these areas. See http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=STRIKE_FORCE for more information.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) means the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

Value chain means adding value to a product, including production, marketing, and the provision of after-sales service and incorporating fair pricing to farms. It also involves keeping the final pricing to customers within competitive range. Value chain development, therefore, is a process of building relationships between supplier and buyer that are reciprocal and win-win; instead of always striving to buy at lowest cost.

§ 3430.1103 Eligibility.

(a) In general. Eligibility to receive a grant under this subpart is limited to government agencies and nonprofit organizations. All applicants must demonstrate in their application that they are a government agency or nonprofit organization. Eligible government agencies and nonprofit organizations may include:

(1) An emergency feeding organization;

(2) An agricultural cooperative;

(3) A producer network or association;

(4) A community health organization;

(5) A public benefit corporation;

(6) An economic development corporation;

(7) A farmers' market;

(8) A community-supported agriculture program;

(9) A buying club;

(10) A SNAP-authorized retailer; and

(11) A State, local, or tribal agency.

(b) Further eligibility requirements—(1) Related to projects. To be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart, applicants must propose projects that:

(i) Have the support of the State SNAP agency;

(ii) Would increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables by low-income consumers participating in SNAP by providing incentives at the point of purchase;

(iii) Operate through authorized SNAP retailers and comply with all relevant SNAP regulations and operating requirements;

(iv) Agree to participate in the FINI comprehensive program evaluation;

(v) Ensure that the same terms and conditions apply to purchases made by individuals with SNAP benefits and with incentives under the FINI grants program as apply to purchases made by individuals who are not members of households receiving benefits as provided in § 278.2(b) of this title; and

(vi) Include effective and efficient technologies for benefit redemption systems that may be replicated in other States and communities.

(2) Related to experience and other competencies. To be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart, applicants must meet the following requirements:

(i) Have experience:

(A) In efforts to reduce food insecurity in the community, including food distribution, improving access to services, or coordinating services and programs; or

(B) With the SNAP program;

(ii) Demonstrate competency to implement a project, provide fiscal accountability, collect data, and prepare reports and other necessary documentation;

(iii) Secure the commitment of the State SNAP agency to cooperate with the project; and

(iv) Possess a demonstrated willingness to share information with researchers, evaluators (including the independent evaluator for the program), practitioners, and other interested parties, including a plan for dissemination of results to stakeholders.

(c) Other, non-eligibility considerations. Applicants are encouraged:

(1) To propose projects that will provide employees with important job skills; and

(2) To have experience the following areas:

(i) Community food work, particularly concerning small and medium-size farms, including the provision of food to people in low-income communities and the development of new markets in low-income communities for agricultural producers; and

(ii) Job training and business development activities for food-related activities in low-income communities.

(d) Partnerships. Applicants for a grant under this subpart are encouraged to seek and create partnerships with public or private, nonprofit or for-profit entities, including links with academic institutions (including minority-serving colleges and universities) or other appropriate professionals; community-based organizations; local government entities; PromiseZone lead applicant/organization or implementation partners; and StrikeForce area coordinators or partnering entities for the purposes of providing additional Federal resources and strengthening under-resourced communities. Only the applicant must meet the requirements specified in this section for grant eligibility. Project partners and collaborators need not meet the eligibility requirements.

§ 3430.1104 Project types and priorities.

(a) FINI Pilot Projects (FPP). FPPs are aimed at new entrants seeking funding for a project in the early stages of incentive program development.

(b) FINI Projects (FP). FPs are aimed at mid-sized groups developing incentive programs at the local or State level.

(c) FINI Large Scale Projects (FLSP). FLSPs are aimed at groups developing multi-county, State, and regional incentive programs with the largest target audience of all FINI projects.

§ 3430.1105 Funding restrictions.

(a) Construction. Funds made available for grants under this subpart shall not be used for the construction of a new building or facility or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an existing building or facility (including site grading and improvement, and architect fees).

(b) Indirect costs. Subject to § 3430.54, indirect costs are allowable.

§ 3430.1106 Matching requirements.

(a) In general. Recipients of a grant under this subpart must provide matching contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis for all Federal funds awarded.

(b) Source and type. The non-Federal share of the cost of a project funded by a grant under this subpart may be provided by a State or local government or a private source. The matching requirement in this section may be met through cash or in-kind contributions, including third-party in-kind contributions fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment, or services.

(c) Limitation. If an applicant partners with a for-profit entity, the non-Federal share that is required to be provided by the applicant may not include the services of an employee of that for-profit entity, including salaries paid or expenses covered by that employer.

(d) Indirect costs. Use of indirect costs as in-kind matching contributions is subject to § 3430.52(b).

§ 3430.1107 Program requirements.

The term of a grant under this subpart may not exceed 5 years. No-cost extensions of time beyond the maximum award terms will not be considered or granted.

§ 3430.1108 Priorities.

(a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, in awarding grants under this subpart, NIFA will give priority to projects that:

(1) Maximize the share of funds used for direct incentives to participants;

(2) Use direct-to-consumer sales marketing;

(3) Demonstrate a track record of designing and implementing successful nutrition incentive programs that connect low-income consumers and agricultural producers;

(4) Provide locally or regionally produced fruits and vegetables;

(5) Are located in underserved communities; or

(6) Address other criteria as established by NIFA and included in the requests for applications.

(b) Exception. The priorities in paragraph (a) of this section that are given by NIFA will depend on the project type identified in § 3430.1104. Applicants should refer to the requests for applications to determine which priorities will be given to which project types.

Done at Washington, DC, this 16th day of October, 2015. Robert E. Holland, Associate Director for Operations, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2015-26848 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2012-0913; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-23-AD; Amendment 39-18261; AD 2015-18-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop Engines (Type Certificate Previously Held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona) Correction

In rule document 2015-25606, appearing on pages 61091 through 61093 in the issue of Friday, October 9, 2015, make the following correction:

On page 61093, at the top of the page, the image heading “Figure 2 to Paragraph (e)—Airplane Operating Procedures” should read “Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)—Airplane Operating Procedures”.

[FR Doc. C1-2015-25606 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0869; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-11-AD; Amendment 39-18296; AD 2015-21-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by crack finds in the 6th stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) disk. This AD requires removal of the affected 6th stage LPT disks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 6th stage LPT disk, which could lead to an uncontained disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 27, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0869.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0869; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7750; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all PW PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32316). The NPRM was prompted by findings of cracks in the 6th stage LPT disk. The NPRM proposed to require removal of the affected 6th stage LPT disks. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR 32316, June 8, 2015) and the FAA's response to this comment.

Request to Clarify Definition of LPT Shop Visit

An individual commenter requested that we define “LPT shop visit” more precisely to prevent unnecessary discussions regarding its meaning.

We agree. We revised the definition to read: “For the purpose of this AD, an “LPT shop visit” is defined as the removal of the 6th stage disk from the LPT rotor and the removal of the blades from the disk.”

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November 18, 2014. The SB provides a list of PW 6th stage LPT disks affected by this AD. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 18 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that no additional hours will be required per engine to comply with this AD because the engine is already disassembled in the shop when we require the part to be removed. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that 6 engines will require replacement parts during an LPT shop visit, and that the prorated replacement parts cost will be $108,800 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $652,800.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-21-04 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-18296; Docket No. FAA-2015-0869; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-11-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective November 27, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines with 6th stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) disks, part number 50N886, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by crack finds in the 6th stage LPT disk. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 6th stage LPT disk, which could lead to an uncontained disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. At the next LPT shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove from service 6th stage LPT disks with serial numbers listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1, of PW Service Bulletin No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November 18, 2014.

(f) Definition

For the purpose of this AD, an “LPT shop visit” is defined as the removal of the 6th stage disk from the LPT rotor and the removal of the blades from the disk.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected].

(h) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7750; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected].

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 27, 2015.

(i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Service Bulletin No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November 18, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-8770; fax: 860-565-4503.

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

(6) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 9, 2015. Robert G. Mann, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26346 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1383; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-15-AD; Amendment 39-18293; AD 2015-21-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Technify Motors GmbH Reciprocating Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Technify Motors GmbH TAE 125-02 reciprocating engines with a dual mass flywheel installed. This AD requires installation of a start phase monitoring system and associated specified software. This AD was prompted by reports of a gearbox drive shaft breaking during starting or restarting of the engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent overload and failure of the gearbox drive shaft, which could result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective November 27, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Technify Motors GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D-09356 Sankt Egidien, Germany; phone: +49 37204 696 0; fax: +49 37204 696 29125; email: [email protected]; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N. A. Otto-Strasse 5, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26700 1369; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1383.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1383; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38990). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Cases of a broken gearbox drive shaft have been reported on aeroplanes equipped with TAE 125-02 engines that have a Dual Mass Flywheel installed.

Investigations results showed a possible overload of the gearbox drive shaft during starting of the engine or during restarting of the engine in-flight.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to engine power loss during flight, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 38990, July 8, 2015).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Technify Motors GmbH has issued Service Bulletin No. SB TMG 125-1018 P1, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing a start phase monitoring system and associated specified software mapping on particular airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

Other Related Service Information

Technify Motors GmbH has also issued Technify Motors SB No. TM TAE 000-0007, Revision 28, dated February 5, 2015; Technify Motors Installation Manual No. IM-02-02, Issue 4, Revision 2, dated January 30, 2015, with Chapter 02-IM-13-02, section 13.8.16, Revision 1, dated November 28, 2014; Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 601-1007 P1, Revision 3, dated February 5, 2015; and Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 651-1004 P1, Revision 2, dated February 5, 2015. Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) has issued DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 42-109/1, dated February 4, 2015; and DAI MSB No. 42-007/16, dated February 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing a start phase monitoring system and associated specified software mapping.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 97 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. For 13 of the engines, required parts cost about $285 per engine. For 84 of the engines, required parts cost about $206 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $45,744.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-21-01 Technify Motors GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH): Amendment 39-18293; Docket No. FAA-2015-1383; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-15-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective November 27, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Technify Motors GmbH TAE 125-02-99 (commercial designation CD-135, formerly Centurion 2.0) and TAE 125-02-114 (commercial designation CD-155, formerly Centurion 2.0S) reciprocating engines, with a dual mass flywheel installed.

(d) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of a gearbox drive shaft breaking during starting or restarting of the engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent overload and failure of the gearbox drive shaft, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

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

Within 110 flight hours or at the next scheduled inspection after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install a start phase monitoring system and software mapping. Use Technify Motors Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB TMG 125-1018 P1, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2015, to do the installation.

(f) Installation Prohibition

After the effective date of this AD, do not install onto any airplane any Technify Motors TAE 125-02-99 or TAE 125-02-114 reciprocating engine that is not equipped with a start phase monitoring system and software mapping.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

(h) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0055, dated March 31, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1383-0002.

(3) Technify Motors SB No. TM TAE 000-0007, Revision 28, dated February 5, 2015; Technify Motors Installation Manual No. IM-02-02, Issue 4, Revision 2, dated January 30, 2015, with Chapter 02-IM-13-02, section 13.8.16, Revision 1, dated November 28, 2014; Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 601-1007 P1, Revision 3, dated February 5, 2015; and Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 651-1004 P1, Revision 2, dated February 5, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from Technify Motors GmbH, using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.

(4) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) MSB No. 42-109/1, dated February 4, 2015; and DAI MSB No. 42-007/16, dated February 4, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, using the contact information in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD.

(5) For DAI service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N. A. Otto-Strasse 5, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26700 1369; email: [email protected]

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

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Technify Motors Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB TMG 125-1018 P1, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Technify Motors GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact Technify Motors GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14, D-09356 Sankt Egidien, Germany; phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-55; email: [email protected]

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

(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 6, 2015. Ann C. Mollica, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26347 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2049; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-12] Revocation of Class E Airspace; Vincennes, IN AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action removes Class E airspace at O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN. Controlled airspace is no longer needed as the airport was abandoned in 2009 and is being removed from the FAAs database.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Pharmakis, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5855.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

During an airspace review, the FAA found that O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN, has been abandoned since in 2009, therefore, controlled airspace is removed from the area. Since this eliminates the impact of controlled airspace on users of the National Airspace System, notice and public procedure under 553(b) are unnecessary. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN. The airport has been abandoned; therefore, controlled airspace is no longer necessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL IN E5 Vincennes, IN [Removed]
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 8, 2015. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-26943 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1389; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-8] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Vidalia, LA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Vidalia, LA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Concordia Parish Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On August 13, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Concordia Parish Airport, Vidalia, LA, (80 FR 48469). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0-mile radius of Concordia Parish Airport, Vidalia, LA, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW LA E5 Vidalia, LA [New] Concordia Parish Airport, LA (Lat. 31°33′43″ N., long. 91°30′23″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Concordia Parish Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 174° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.7 mile radius to 9 miles south of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 14, 2015. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-26947 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3322; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-16] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Vancouver, WA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E surface area airspace at Pearson Field, Vancouver, WA, to accommodate existing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) at the airport. This enhances the safety and management of SIAPs for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On August 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E surface area airspace Pearson Field, Vancouver, WA (80 FR 51970). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Eight comments were received on the proposal. Seven comments were received supporting the proposal. One comment was received from Bryan Painter stating that the airport did not need Class E surface airspace. The FAA does not agree. The FAA's decision to establish Class E surface airspace at Pearson Field is the result of years of collaborative efforts between local aircraft owner/operators, airport officials, and the FAA to make the airspace safe for aircraft flying within the National Airspace System, specifically within Portland International Airport airspace.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E surface area airspace, at Pearson Field, Vancouver, WA. A review of the airspace revealed current standard instrument approach procedures not being fully contained within controlled airspace. Class E surface area airspace is established within an area 4.9 miles west, 4 miles east, 2.9 miles north, and 1.8 miles south of Pearson Field.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM OR E2 Vancouver, WA [New] Pearson Field, WA (Lat. 45°37′14″ N., Long. 122°39′23″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 45°36′06″ N., Long. 122°46′29″ W.; to Lat. 45°38′27″ N., Long. 122°46′19″ W.; to Lat. 45°40′21″ N., Long. 122°44′08″ W.; to Lat. 45°39′49″ N., Long. 122°33′23″ W.; to Lat. 45°34′51″ N., Long. 122°33′53″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 15, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-26948 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 11 [Public Notice: 9324] RIN 1400-AD59 Appointment of Foreign Service Officers AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of State amends provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations related to the appointment of Foreign Service Officers. The revised rules will be substantially the same as, and will supplement, Department of State guidance currently in the Foreign Affairs Manual, which is also available to the public.

DATES:

This rule will be effective on November 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alice Kottmyer, Office of the Legal Adviser, who may be reached at (202) 647-2318.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to Section 206 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (the Act), codified at 22 U.S.C. 3926, the Secretary of State may prescribe regulations to carry out functions under the Act. The Secretary has done so in the Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM).

The FAM is the formal written document for recording, maintaining, and issuing Department directives, which are written communications establishing and prescribing the organizations, policies, or procedures that provide an official basis of Department operation.

The Foreign Service includes personnel not only from the Department, but U.S. Agency for International Development, and certain offices within the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, among others. FSOs may be recruited both from current federal personnel (for example, from the civil service) and from the general public. Recruitment from current federal service is covered by the FAM.

The procedures relating to recruitment of FSOs from the general public are covered by rules published in the CFR, in part 11. However, since many of the policies and procedures dealing with the latter appointments are the same as those used to appoint current federal personnel to the Foreign Service, the provisions of part 11 and the FAM must be consistent. Therefore, where part 11 uses the same procedures as the FAM, it refers to the relevant FAM provisions.

Other than a minor amendment in 2002 (see 67 FR 46108), part 11 has remained as it was drafted 31 years ago; whereas, the relevant provisions of the FAM were updated in 2013. This rulemaking harmonizes the two authorities. The Department believes that a revised part 11, together with the FAM, provide comprehensive guidance for both internal stakeholders and interested members of the general public on the appointment of Foreign Service Officers.

The Department's revision of part 11 is part of its Retrospective Review conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13563.

Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

The revision to part 11 of 22 CFR relates to the Department's organization, procedure, or practice and is not subject to the notice-and-comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business

The Department certifies that this rulemaking is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and Executive Order 13272, section 3(b).

The Congressional Review Act

This rulemaking is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing or adopting any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rulemaking will not result in any such expenditure nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism

This rulemaking 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. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Review

Although the Department of State is generally exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12866, it has reviewed this rulemaking to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in these Executive Orders, and has determined that the benefits of this rulemaking justify any costs. The Department cannot identify any cost to the public associated with this rulemaking. The Department does not consider this rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3 of Executive Order 12866. The Department considers this rule to be part of its Retrospective Review conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13563.

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

The Department has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 5 of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking does not affect any existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, nor does it create new information collections. The Department invites public comment on whether the Foreign Service Office Test Registration (OMB Control Number 1405-0008) burden estimates should be modified as a result of the notification requirements in Section 11.20(d)(2)(i)(B).

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 11

Foreign service, Foreign officials, Government employees.

Accordingly, revise 22 CFR part 11 to read as follows:

PART 11—APPOINTMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS Sec. 11.10 Links to relevant provisions of the Foreign Affairs Manual. 11.20 Entry-level Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments. 11.30 Mid-level Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments. [Reserved] 11.40 Senior Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments. [Reserved] 11.50 Foreign Service specialist career candidate appointments. 11.60 Limited non-career appointments. Authority:

22 U.S.C. 2651a, 3926, 3941.

§ 11.10 Links to relevant provisions of the Foreign Affairs Manual.

(a) The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) is the formal written document for recording, maintaining, and issuing Department of State (Department) directives that address personnel and other matters. It is the primary authority for appointment of current Department employees to the Foreign Service. This part is the primary authority for the appointment of non-employees to the Foreign Service. The FAM provides Department procedures and policies that are not repeated in this part. It is an important resource for understanding the provisions of this part.

(b) The two FAM volumes relevant to this part are Volume 3, Personnel, and Volume 16, Medical. FAM provisions are cited by volume followed by chapter or subchapter—for example, Chapter 210 of Volume 16 would be cited 16 FAM 210. All of the relevant FAM provisions are on the Department's public Web site. The links for the relevant FAM provisions are as follows:

3 FAM 2215 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84854.pdf. 3 FAM 2216.2 3 FAM 2216.3 3 FAM 2217 3 FAM 2218 3 FAM 2245 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84851.pdf. 3 FAM 2250 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84850.pdf. 3 FAM 2251.3 3 FAM 2290 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84846.pdf. 16 FAM 210 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89692.pdf.
§ 11.20 Entry-level Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments.

(a) General considerations—(1) Authority. Pursuant to section 302 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), all Foreign Service Officers shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. All appointments shall be made to a class and not to a particular post. No person shall be eligible for appointment as a Foreign Service Officer unless that person is a citizen of the United States, is twenty-one, and is world-wide available. Pursuant to section 306 of the Act, such appointment is initially a career-candidate appointment. The tenuring of Foreign Service Officer career candidates is governed by the provisions of 3 FAM 2245.

(2) Veterans' preference. Pursuant to section 301 of the Act, the fact that an applicant for appointment as a Foreign Service Officer candidate is a veteran or disabled veteran, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2108, must be considered as an affirmative factor in making such appointments.

(3) Policy. Appointment as an Entry Level Foreign Service Officer career candidate of class 6, 5, or 4 is governed by these regulations. Successful applicants will be appointed as career candidates for a period not to exceed 5 years. Under precepts of the Commissioning and Tenure Board, career candidates may be granted tenure and recommended for appointment as career Foreign Service Officers. Those who are not granted tenure prior to the expiration of their career-candidate appointments will be separated from the Foreign Service. Separated candidates who originally were employees of an agency and who accepted a limited appointment to the Foreign Service with the consent of the head of the agency in which they were employed will be entitled to reemployment rights in their former agency in accordance with section 310 of the Act.

(b) The Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT). The following regulations apply to the FSOT:

(1) Purpose. The FSOT is designed to enable the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service to test the applicant's knowledge, skills, and abilities, including writing skills that are necessary to the work of a Foreign Service Officer.

(2) Eligibility. Before each FSOT, the Board of Examiners will establish a closing date for the receipt of applications for designation to take the test. No person will be designated to take the test who has not, as of that closing date, filed a complete application with the Board. To be designated to take the FSOT, an applicant, as of the date of the test, must be a citizen of the United States and at least 20 years of age.

(3) When and where given. The FSOT will be given periodically, in designated cities in the United States and at selected locales abroad, on dates established by the Board of Examiners and publicly announced on careers.state.gov.

(4) Scoring. The several parts of the FSOT will be weighted and graded according to standards established by the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners may adjust the passing score of the FSOT to reflect the projected hiring needs of the Foreign Service.

(c) Qualifications Evaluation Panel (QEP). The following regulations apply to the QEP:

(1) Purpose. Each QEP is designed to enable the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service to review each candidate's file and evaluate it against established precepts of successful Foreign Service Officer performance. The QEPs rank order candidates within each career track.

(2) Panels. QEPs are career track specific and are staffed by panelists approved by the Board of Examiners from a roster of qualified active duty and retired Foreign Service Officers. At least one of the panelists will be from the same career track as those in the candidate pool.

(3) Eligibility. Candidates whose score on the FSOT is at or above the passing level set by the Board of Examiners will be invited to submit their responses to Personal Narrative Questions. The questions, linked to the Foreign Service performance precepts, are designed to elicit specific examples of past performance where the candidate demonstrated the requisite precept.

(4) When administered. The Board of Examiners holds one session of QEPs following each FSOT.

(5) Scoring. Panelists will score files according to standards established by the Board of Examiners. The candidacy of anyone whose score is at or above the passing level set by the Board of Examiners will continue. The candidacy of anyone whose score is below the passing level will be ended and may not be considered again until the candidate has passed a new FSOT, at minimum of a year later. The Board of Examiners sets the passing score for each QEP based on the projected hiring needs of the Foreign Service. All candidates exempt from the FSOT, except Mustang applicants, are also exempt from review by a QEP.

(i) The Board of Examiners may authorize QEPs to give special consideration in the selection of candidates to certain factors, e.g., demonstrating language ability, which the Board will publicly announce on careers.state.gov.

(ii) The Board of Examiners may choose to verify accounts given by candidates in their personal narratives.

(d) Foreign Service Oral Assessment (FSOA). The following regulations apply to the FSOA:

(1) Purpose. The FSOA is designed to enable the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service to test the candidate's ability to demonstrate the qualities or dimensions that are essential to the successful performance of Foreign Service work. The FSOA for the Entry Level Foreign Service Officer Career Candidate Program will consist of an assessment procedure publicly announced by the Board of Examiners on careers.state.gov. The process is generally referred to as the Foreign Service Oral Assessment or FSOA.

(2) Eligibility—(i) Through the FSOT and QEP review. (A) Candidates who pass the FSOT and whose score on the QEP review is at or above the passing level set by the Board of Examiners will be invited to take the FSOA.

(B) Candidates must schedule the FSOA within 12 months of receiving their invitation to take the FSOA unless they receive an extension of time. Candidates may request an extension of up to an additional 12 months. Active duty military have unrestricted time to take an FSOA if they notify the Board of Examiners of their active duty status. Failure to take the FSOA within 12 months of the invitation will result in the cancellation of the candidacy, unless the candidate has requested and obtained an extension of eligibility. The candidacy of anyone for whom the scheduling period is extended by the Board due to being outside of the United States will automatically be terminated if the candidate fails to notify his or her registrar of the change in status within three months of returning to the United States. The candidate must schedule an FSOA, but if a candidate fails to appear for a scheduled FSOA, the candidacy is automatically terminated. The Director of the Office of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment in the Bureau of Human Resources, or his/her designee, will consider requests to reschedule on a case-by-case basis if a candidate so requests prior to his/her scheduled FSOA.

(ii) Through the Mustang Program. Career employees of the Department of State in classes FS-6 and above or grades GS-5 and above who are at least 21 years of age and who have at least three years of service with the Department may be selected by the Board of Examiners for admission to the FSOA for Entry Level Career Candidates under the Department's Mustang Program. Mustang candidates must meet all program requirements and submit all application material to be considered for the Mustang Program. See the procedures set forth in 3 FAM 2216.2-4 (Foreign Service Officer Oral Assessment (FSOA)).

(iii) Through a mid-level conversion program. Employees of the Department of State in grade GS-13 and above are eligible to apply to enter the Foreign Service through a mid-level conversion program (see 3 FAM 2216.3-2) whenever held.

(iv) Through other programs. (A) Under programs established pursuant to section 105(d)(1) of the Act, which addresses diversity within the Foreign Service.

(B) Under any other special entry programs created by the Department to meet specific needs of the Foreign Service.

(3) When and where given. The FSOA will be held intermittently in Washington, DC, and may be held in selected cities in the United States or abroad as necessary, as publicly announced.

(4) Assessment panel. (i) The FSOA will be given by a panel of assessors approved by the Board of Examiners from a roster of active duty and/or retired Foreign Service Officers.

(ii) Service as an assessor shall be limited to a maximum of 5 years, unless a further period is specifically authorized by the Board. Normally assessment panels shall be chaired by a career officer of the Foreign Service, trained in personnel testing and evaluation. Determinations of duly constituted panels of assessors are final unless modified by specific action of the Board of Examiners.

(5) Scoring. Candidates taking the FSOA will be scored numerically according to standards established and publicly announced by the Board of Examiners, in places such as careers.state.gov. The candidacy of anyone whose score is at or above the passing level set by the Board will be continued. The candidacy of anyone whose score is below the passing level will be terminated.

(e) Background investigation. Candidates who pass the FSOA and elect to continue the hiring process will be subject to a background investigation. The background investigation must be conducted to determine the candidate's eligibility for a security clearance and serves as the basis for determining suitability for appointment to the Foreign Service (see 3 FAM 2212.1 (Security Investigation)).

(f) Medical examination—(1) Eligibility. Candidates who pass the oral assessment and elect to continue the hiring process must undergo a medical examination. See the procedures in of 16 FAM 210 (Medical Clearances).

(2) [Reserved]

(g) Suitability Review Panel. Generally after the medical clearance has been issued and the background investigation is received, the candidate's entire file (excluding any medical records) is reviewed and evaluated by the Suitability Review Panel to determine the candidate's suitability for the Foreign Service. See the procedures in 3 FAM 2215 (Suitability Review). The candidacy of any candidate who is determined by the Suitability Review Panel to be unsuitable for appointment shall be terminated and the candidate so informed. According to procedures established by the Board of Examiners, a candidate may appeal this decision to the Board of Examiners Staff Director or designee whose decision will be final. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) will re-submit applicants to the Suitability Review Panel if they are found to have falsified information in the application process or are found to have disqualifying factors.

(h) Certification for appointment—(1) Eligibility. (i) A candidate will not be certified as eligible for appointment as a Foreign Service Officer Career Candidate unless that candidate is at least 21 years of age and a citizen of the United States.

(ii) Except for preference eligible individuals, career candidate appointments must be made before the candidate's 60th birthday. Preference eligible individuals must be appointed before their 65th birthday. The maximum age for appointment under this program is based on the requirement that all career candidates must be able to:

(A) Complete at least two full tours of duty, exclusive of orientation and training;

(B) Complete the requisite eligibility period for tenure consideration; and

(C) Complete the requisite eligibility period to receive retirement benefits, prior to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 prescribed by the Act.

(iii) A candidate may be certified as eligible for direct appointment to classes FS-6, FS-5 or FS-4 based on established, publicly available, criteria.

(iv) Employees who receive a career candidate appointment, i.e., who are untenured, have five years to obtain tenure. These career-candidate appointments, including the appointment of an individual who is the employee of any agency, may not exceed five years in duration, and may not be renewed or be extended beyond five years. A candidate denied tenure under 3 FAM 2250 may not be reappointed as a career candidate to become a generalist.

(2) Career-track rank-order registers. The Board of Examiners maintains separate rank-order registers for career candidates in administrative, consular, economic, public diplomacy and political career tracks within the Department of State. Appointments from each career-track register will be made in rank order according to hiring needs.

(3) Special programs. Mustang candidates who are career employees of the Department of State and who have satisfactorily completed all aspects of the assessment process will be certified by the Board of Examiners for placement on the Hiring Register to compete for a hiring opportunity as a Foreign Service Officer. Mustang candidates who have previously passed the FSOT/QEP will continue in the career track they selected when registering for the FSOT and be placed on the appropriate career track register.

(4) Foreign language requirement. A candidate may be certified for appointment to classes FS-6, FS-5, or FS-4 without first having passed an examination in a foreign language, but the appointment will be subject to the condition that the newly appointed career candidate may not be appointed as a career Foreign Service Officer unless, within a specified period of time, proficiency in a foreign language is achieved.

(i) Termination of eligibility—(1) Time limit. Candidates who have qualified but have not been appointed because of lack of openings will be removed from the rank-order register 18 months after the date of placement on the rank-order register. Time spent in civilian Federal Government service abroad (to a maximum of 2 years of such service), including Peace Corps volunteer service, spouses of Foreign Service officers, or in active regular or reserve military service (no maximum), will not be counted as part of the 18-month eligibility period.

(2) Extension. The Board of Examiners may extend the eligibility period when such extension is, in its discretion, justified by the needs of the Foreign Service.

(3) Postponement of entrance on duty. Postponement of entrance on duty because of civilian Federal Government service abroad (to a maximum of 2 years of such service), including Peace Corps volunteer service, or as spouse of a Foreign Service Officer, or active regular or reserve military service (to a maximum of the limit of such required service), may be authorized by the Board.

(j) Travel expenses. The travel and other personal expenses of candidates incurred in connection with the written and oral examination will not be borne by the Government. However, the participating foreign affairs departments may issue round-trip invitational travel orders to bring candidates to Washington, DC, at government expense, when it is determined by the agencies that this is necessary in the interest of the Foreign Service.

§ 11.30 Mid-level Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments. [Reserved]
§ 11.40 Senior Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments. [Reserved]
§ 11.50 Foreign Service specialist career candidate appointments.

(a) General considerations. (1) Pursuant to section 303 of the Act, the Secretary may appoint individuals to the Foreign Service (other than those who are in the personnel categories specified in section 302(a) of the Act). Pursuant to section 306 of the Act, such appointment is initially a career candidate appointment. Section 303 governs the appointment by the Department of State of Foreign Service specialist career candidates to classes FS-1 and all classes below. Specialist candidates comprise all candidates for career appointment in all career tracks other than generalist career tracks (i.e., management, consular, economic, political, and public diplomacy). The tenuring of specialist career candidates is governed by the procedures in 3 FAM 2250.

(2) Veterans' preference shall apply to the selection and appointment of Foreign Service specialist career candidates. Veterans' preference is an affirmative factor once the candidate has been qualified for the position. As soon as veterans go on the Hiring Register, they may apply for additional points to increase their rank order standing.

(b) Specialist career candidate appointments—(1) Certification of need. (i) Candidates for appointment as specialist career candidates must be world-wide available and must have a professional or a functional skill for which there is a continuing need in the Foreign Service. No applicant shall be appointed for which there is no certified need established at a specific class level. Either the Director General may determine in advance which specialties are routinely or frequently in shortage or need periodic recruitment through publicly posted vacancy announcements, or the Director General may certify that there is a need for an applicant in a specific specialist category and at a specific class.

(ii) Candidates who receive a career candidate appointment, i.e., who are untenured, have four years with the possibility of five years (see 3 FAM 2251.3) to obtain tenure. These appointments, including the appointment of an individual who is the employee of any agency, may not exceed five years in duration, and may not be renewed or be extended beyond five years. A specialist candidate denied tenure under 3 FAM 2250 generally may not be reappointed as a career candidate in the same career track.

(2) Eligibility. An applicant must be a citizen of the United States and at least 20 years of age. The minimum age for appointment as a career candidate is 21. Except for preference eligible candidates, all career candidate appointments shall be made before the candidate's 60th birthday. Preference eligible candidates may be appointed up to their 65th birthday. The maximum age for appointment under the program is based on the requirement that all career candidates shall be able to:

(i) Complete at least two full tours of duty, exclusive of orientation and training,

(ii) Complete the requisite eligibility period for tenure consideration, and

(iii) Complete the requisite eligibility period to receive retirement benefits, prior to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 prescribed by the Act.

(3) Screening. (i) Specialist career candidates will be screened initially on the basis of education and experience.

(ii) Based on a job analysis, the Board of Examiners, in coordination with any bureau responsible for the specialty, will establish the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform successfully the tasks and duties of Foreign Service specialists in that functional field. Assessors working for the Board of Examiners will screen applications under those approved criteria and select those who meet the requirements to invite to an oral assessment.

(4) Oral assessment. Candidates are selected through the initial screening process. The oral assessment will be given by a panel of assessors, at least one of whom will be a career Foreign Service employee proficient in the functional field for which the candidate is being tested. The assessment may include a writing sample. Candidates taking the oral assessment will be scored numerically according to standards set by the Board of Examiners. The candidacy of anyone whose score is at or above the passing level set by the Board will be continued. The candidacy of anyone whose score is below the passing level will be terminated. The candidate may only reapply after the first anniversary date of the original application.

(5) Background investigation. Specialist candidates who pass the oral assessment and elect to continue the hiring process will be subject to a background investigation. The background investigation must be conducted to determine the candidate's eligibility for a security clearance and serves as the basis for determining suitability for appointment to the Foreign Service (see 3 FAM 2212.1-1 (Security Investigation)).

(6) Medical examination. Candidates who pass the oral assessment and elect to continue the hiring process must undergo a medical examination. See the procedures in 16 FAM 210 (Medical Clearances).

(7) Suitability Review Panel. After the medical examination clearance has been issued and the background investigation is received, the candidate's entire file (excluding any medical records) is reviewed and evaluated by a Suitability Review Panel to determine the candidate's suitability for the Foreign Service. See the procedures in 3 FAM 2215 (Suitability Review). According to procedures established by the Board of Examiners, a candidate may appeal this decision to the Board of Examiners Staff Director or designee, whose decision will be final. DS will re-submit applicants to the Suitability Review Panel if they are found to have falsified information on their application or are found to have disqualifying factors.

§ 11.60 Limited non-career appointments.

Consistent with section 303 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 3943), the Secretary of State may also appoint Civil Service employees and other individuals to the Foreign Service, and, consistent with section 309 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 3949), such appointments may include limited non-career appointments (LNAs). After meeting the job specific requirements, candidates must meet applicable medical, security, and suitability requirements. Limited non-career appointments are covered under 3 FAM 2290.

Dated: September 11, 2015. Arnold A. Chacon, Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources.
[FR Doc. 2015-27026 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0973] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; York River, Yorktown, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17) across the York River, mile 7.0, at Yorktown, VA. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate mechanical repairs to the bridge.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on November 14, 2015, until 7 a.m. on November 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0973], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to facilitate mechanical repairs to the movable grating between one of the movable spans and the fixed bridge. The bridge is a swing bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.1025. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. on November 14, 2015, until 7 a.m. on November 15, 2015. If necessary due to inclement weather on November 14, 2015, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. on November 21, 2015, until 7 a.m. on November 22, 2015. The York River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government vessels, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with U.S. government and commercial waterway users.

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

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

Dated: October 19, 2015. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-26969 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0947] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River, Marysville, WA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF) Bridge 37.0 across the Snohomish River, mile 3.5 at Marysville, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate scheduled bridge rail joint maintenance and replacement. The deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the maintenance to allow safe movement of work crews.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from November 1, 2015 through November 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0947] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7234 email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BNSF has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the BNSF RR Bridge 37.0, mile 3.5, crossing Snohomish River, at Marysville, WA. BNSF requested the BNSF RR Bridge 37.0 remain in the closed-to-navigation position for rail maintenance. This maintenance has been scheduled, and is funded as part of the Cascade Corridor Improvement Project.

The normal operating schedule for this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5 which states it must open promptly on signal at any time, and requires constant attendance by with a drawtender. BNSF RR Bridge 37.0 provides 10 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position.

This deviation allows the BNSF RR Bridge 37.0, at mile 3.5 crossing Snohomish River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. from November 1, 2015 through November 15, 2015; except, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. until Midnight on November 10, 2015 and from 8 a.m. until Midnight on November 12, 2015. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR part 117, subpart A at all other times.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period, but any time lost to emergency openings will necessitate a time extension added to the approved dates. Waterway usage on this part of the Snohomish River includes tug and barge to small pleasure craft. No immediate alternate route for vessels to pass is available on this part of the river. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their 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 19, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-26922 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 13 [NPS-AKRO-18755; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000] RIN 1024-AE21 Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The National Park Service is amending its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This rule provides that the National Park Service does not adopt State of Alaska management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife, which are related to predator reduction efforts (as defined in this rule). This rule affirms current State prohibitions on harvest practices by adopting them as federal regulation. The rule also prohibits the following activities that are allowed under State law: Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; taking brown bears and black bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season; harvest of swimming caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power; and using dogs to hunt black bears. The rule also simplifies and updates procedures for closing an area or restricting an activity in National Park Service areas in Alaska; updates obsolete subsistence regulations; prohibits obstructing persons engaged in lawful hunting or trapping; and authorizes the use of native species as bait for fishing.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andee Sears, Regional Law Enforcement Specialist, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644-3417. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Proposed Rule and Public Comment Period

On September 4, 2014, the National Park Service (NPS) published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 52595). The rule was open for public comment for 90 days, until December 3, 2014. The NPS reopened the comment period from January 15, 2015 through February 15, 2015 (80 FR 2065). The NPS invited comments through the mail, hand delivery, and through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

During the first comment period in 2014, the NPS held 17 public hearings in various locations in Alaska. Approximately 168 individuals attended these hearings and approximately 120 participants provided testimony during the formal public comment sessions. During the second comment period, nine public meetings were held in the State. A total of 29 individuals attended the public meetings, and a total of nine attendees spoke during the formal public comment sessions. The NPS also held two statewide government-to-government consultation teleconferences, and offered to consult in person, with tribes. Four comments were received during the statewide government-to-government consultation conference calls and the NPS met with three tribes that requested consultation in person (Allakaket, Tazlina, and Chesh'na (Chistochina)).

The NPS received approximately 70,000 comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period. These included unique comment letters, form letters, and signed petitions. Approximately 65,000 comments were form letters. The NPS also received three petitions with a combined total of approximately 75,000 signatures. Some commenters sent comments by multiple methods. NPS attempted to match such duplicates and count them as one comment. Additionally, many comments were signed by more than one person. NPS counted a letter or petition as a single comment, regardless of the number of signatories.

A summary of comments and NPS responses is provided below in the section entitled “Summary of and Responses to Public Comments.” After considering the public comments and additional review, the NPS made some changes in the final rule from that proposed. These changes are summarized below in the section entitled “Changes from the Proposed Rule.”

Federal and State Mandates for Managing Wildlife.

In enacting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh-5; 3101-3233) in 1980, Congress's stated purpose was to establish in Alaska various conservation system units that contain nationally significant values, including units of the National Park System, in order to preserve them “for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration of present and future generations[.]” 16 U.S.C. 3101(a). Included among the express purposes in ANILCA are preservation of wildlife, wilderness values, and natural undisturbed, unaltered ecosystems while allowing for recreational opportunities, including sport hunting. 16 U.S.C. 3101(a)-(b).

The legislative history of ANILCA reinforces the purpose of the National Park System units to maintain natural, undisturbed ecosystems. “Certain units have been selected because they provide undisturbed natural laboratories—among them the Noatak, Charley, and Bremner River watersheds.” Alaska National Interest Lands, Report of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Report No. 96-413 at page 137 [hereafter Senate Report]. Legislative history identifies Gates of the Artic, Denali, Katmai, and Glacier Bay National Parks as “large sanctuaries where fish and wildlife may roam freely, developing their social structures and evolving over long periods of time as nearly as possible without the changes that extensive human activities would cause.” Senate Report, at page 137.

The congressional designation of “national preserves” in Alaska was for the specific and sole purpose of allowing sport hunting and commercial trapping, unlike areas designated as national parks. 126 Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). 16 U.S.C. 3201 directs that national preserves shall be managed “in the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve[.]” Under ANILCA and as used in this document, the term “subsistence” refers to subsistence activities by rural Alaska residents authorized by Title VIII of ANILCA, which ANILCA identifies as the priority consumptive use of fish and wildlife on public lands. 16 U.S.C. 3144. Subsistence taking of fish and wildlife in NPS areas is generally regulated by the Department of the Interior. Taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves is generally regulated by the State of Alaska.

In addressing wildlife harvest, the legislative history provided “the Secretary shall manage National Park System units in Alaska to assure the optimum functioning of entire ecological systems in undisturbed natural habitats. The standard to be met in regulating the taking of fish and wildlife and trapping, is that the preeminent natural values of the Park System shall be protected in perpetuity, and shall not be jeopardized by human uses.” 126 Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). This is reflected in the statutory purposes of various national preserves that were established by ANILCA, which include the protection of populations of fish and wildlife, including specific references to predators such as brown/grizzly bears and wolves.

Activities related to taking wildlife remain subject to other federal laws, including the mandate of the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101) “to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life” in units of the National Park System and to provide for visitor enjoyment of the same for this and future generations. Policies implementing the NPS Organic Act require the NPS to protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006 §§ 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The legislative history of ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to modify the NPS Organic Act or its implementing policies in this respect: “the Committee recognizes that the policies and legal authorities of the managing agencies will determine the nature and degree of management programs affecting ecological relationships, population's dynamics, and manipulations of the components of the ecosystem.” Senate Report, at pages 232-331. NPS policy states that “activities to reduce . . . native species for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species (i.e. predator control)” are not allowed on lands managed by the NPS. NPS Management Policies 2006 § 4.4.3.

The State's legal framework for managing wildlife in Alaska is based on sustained yield, which is defined by State statute to mean “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of human harvest of game[.]” AS § 16.05.255(k)(5). To that end, the Alaska Board of Game (BOG) is directed to “adopt regulations to provide for intensive management programs to restore the abundance or productivity of identified big game prey populations as necessary to achieve human consumptive use goals[.]” AS § 16.05.255(e). Allowances that manipulate natural systems and processes to achieve these goals, including actions to reduce or increase wildlife populations for harvest, conflict with laws and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural wildlife populations. See, e.g., NPS Management Policies 2006 §§ 4.1, 4.4.3.

This potential for conflict was recognized by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources prior to the passage of ANILCA, when the Committee stated that “[i]t is contrary to the National Park Service concept to manipulate habitat or populations to achieve maximum utilization of natural resources. Rather, the National Park System concept requires implementation of management policies which strive to maintain natural abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological integrity of native animals as part of their ecosystem, and that concept should be maintained.” Senate Report, at page 171.

In the last several years, the State of Alaska has allowed an increasing number of liberalized methods of hunting and trapping wildlife and extended seasons to increase opportunities to harvest predator species. Predator harvest practices recently authorized on lands in the State, including lands in several national preserves, include:

• Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites;

• harvesting brown bears over bait (which often includes dog food, bacon/meat grease, donuts, and other human food sources); and

• taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season when their pelts have little trophy, economic, or subsistence value.

These practices are not consistent with the NPS's implementation of ANILCA's authorization of sport hunting and trapping in national preserves. To the extent such practices are intended or reasonably likely to manipulate wildlife populations for harvest purposes or alter natural wildlife behaviors, they are not consistent with NPS management policies implementing the NPS Organic Act or the sections of ANILCA that established the national preserves in Alaska. Additional liberalizations by the State that are inconsistent with NPS management directives, policies, and federal law are anticipated in the future.

16 U.S.C. 3201 of ANILCA provides “within national preserves the Secretary may designate zones where and periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.” In order to comply with federal law and NPS policy, the NPS has adopted temporary restrictions under 36 CFR 13.40(e) to prevent the application of the above listed predator harvest practices to national preserves in Alaska (see, e.g., 2013 Superintendent's Compendium for Denali National Park and Preserve). These restrictions protect fauna and provide for public use and enjoyment consistent with ANILCA. While the NPS prefers a State solution to these conflicts, the State has been mostly unwilling to accommodate the different management directives for NPS areas. In the last ten years, the NPS has objected to more than fifty proposals to liberalize predator harvest in areas that included national preserves, and each time the BOG has been unwilling to exclude national preserves from State regulations designed to manipulate predator/prey dynamics for human consumptive use goals.

In deciding not to treat NPS lands differently from State and other lands, the BOG suggested the NPS was responsible for ensuring that taking wildlife complies with federal laws and policies applicable to NPS areas, and that the NPS could use its own authority to ensure national preserves are managed in a manner consistent with federal law and NPS policy. See, e.g., Statement of BOG Chairman Judkins to Superintendent Dudgeon, BOG Public Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska (February 27, 2010) (NPS was testifying in opposition to allowing the take of black bear cubs and sows with cubs with artificial light in national preserves). In the absence of State action excluding national preserves, this rulemaking is required to make the temporary restrictions permanent. 36 CFR 13.50(d). This rule responds to the BOG's suggestion by promulgating NPS regulations to ensure national preserves are managed consistent with federal law and policy and prevent historically prohibited sport hunting practices from being authorized in national preserves.

The scope of this rule is limited—sport hunting and trapping are still allowed throughout national preserves and the vast majority of State hunting regulations are consistent with federal law and policy and continue to apply in national preserves. This rule only restricts sport hunting and trapping in national preserves, which constitute less than six percent of the lands in Alaska open to hunting. This rule does not limit the taking of wildlife for Title VIII subsistence uses under the federal subsistence regulations.

Final Rule Summary of Final Rule

The rule separates regulations that govern the taking of fish and the taking of wildlife into two sections: 13.40 and 13.42, respectively. The rule makes the following substantive changes to existing NPS regulations:

(1) In accordance with NPS policies, taking wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or management actions involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans are not allowed on NPS-managed lands. It also explains how the NPS will notify the public of specific activities that are not consistent with this section.

(2) Affirms current State prohibitions on harvest practices by adopting them as federal regulation, and also maintains historical prohibitions on certain practices that the State has recently authorized for sport hunting of predators: (i) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; (ii) taking brown bears over bait; and (iii) taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season. The rule also eliminates exceptions to practices generally prohibited under State of Alaska law, thereby prohibiting: Taking caribou that are swimming, or from a motorboat that is under power, in two game management units (GMU); baiting black bears; and using dogs to hunt black bears.

(3) Prohibits intentionally obstructing or hindering persons actively engaged in lawful hunting or trapping.

(4) Updates and simplifies procedures for implementing closures or restrictions in park areas, including taking fish and wildlife for sport purposes.

(5) Updates NPS regulations to reflect federal assumption of the management of subsistence hunting and fishing under Title VIII of ANILCA from the State in the 1990s.

(6) Allows the use of native species as bait, commonly salmon eggs, for fishing in accordance with applicable federal and non-conflicting State law. This supersedes for park areas in Alaska the National Park System-wide prohibition on using certain types of bait in 36 CFR 2.3(d)(2).

Prohibiting Predator Reduction

Activities or management actions involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural ecosystems or processes (including natural predator/prey dynamics, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, genetics, or behavior of a species) are inconsistent with the laws and policies applicable to NPS areas. The rule clarifies in regulation that these activities are not allowed on NPS lands in Alaska. Under this rule, the Regional Director will compile a list updated at least annually of activities prohibited by this section of the rule. Notice will be provided in accordance with 36 CFR 13.50(f) of this rule.

Prohibiting Methods and Means of Taking Wildlife in National Preserves

The rule codifies for national preserves current State prohibitions on harvest practices, and also maintains historical prohibitions on certain sport hunting practices that have been recently authorized by the State for taking predators. It also eliminates exceptions (as applied to national preserves) under State laws that authorize sport hunters to take swimming caribou, to take caribou from motorboats under power, to take black bears over bait, and to use dogs to hunt black bears. The elements of the rule that are described in this paragraph will not be implemented until January 1, 2016, to avoid any potential confusion that may arise from issuing this rule during the 2015 hunting seasons. Delaying the implementation of these provisions will give the general public and other stakeholders sufficient time to understand the new rules before the 2016 hunting seasons begin.

Prohibiting the Obstruction of Persons Engaged in Lawful Hunting or Trapping

The rule prohibits the intentional obstruction or hindrance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities. This includes (i) placing oneself in a location in which human presence may alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take or alter the imminent feasibility of taking game by another person; or (ii) creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus in order to alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take. These actions are prohibited by State law, but this law is not adopted under the regulations for national preserves, because it does not directly regulate hunting and trapping. This rule directly codifies these prohibitions into the NPS regulations, to prevent the frustration of lawful hunting and trapping in national preserves.

Updating Closure and Restriction Procedures

The rule updates and simplies the procedures for implementing closures and restrictions on certain activities in NPS areas in Alaska. These changes will make the procedures in Alaska more consistent with other NPS units outside of Alaska and with Alaska State Parks. The rule clarifies that Superintendents must use the procedures in § 13.50 to implement any closure or restriction in NPS areas in Alaska. This eliminates potential confusion about whether the procedures in § 13.50 apply only when they are referenced in a separate regulation in part 13 (currently found in the regulations for weapons, camping, and taking fish and wildlife), or whether they apply to all closures and restrictions in Alaska.

The rule requires rulemaking for nonemergency closures or restrictions if the closures or restrictions (or the termination or relaxation of them) are of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area, adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, or require a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the area. These rulemaking criteria are modeled after the the criteria that apply to closures and restrictions in Alaska State Parks (11 AAC 12.335), which are also similar to the criteria in 36 CFR 1.5(b) that apply to NPS areas outside of Alaska. Emergency closures and restrictions are limited to the duration of the emergency.

Before a nonemergency closure or restriction can be implemented, the NPS must issue a written determination explaining the basis of the closure or restriction. The NPS will also compile in writing a list, updated annually, of all closures and restrictions (i.e., the compendium). The compendium and the written determinations of need will be posted on the NPS Web site and made available at park headquarters.

With respect to nonemergency restrictions on taking of fish and wildlife in national preserves, the final rule requires an opportunity for public comment, including a public meeting near the affected NPS unit, before the action is taken. This rule recognizes that, although the internet has become an effective method of communicating with the public, in-person public meetings may still be the most effective way to engage Alaskans, particularly those in rural areas. The rule also requires the NPS to consult with the State prior to adopting such closures and restrictions. Emergency closures or restrictions on the taking of fish or wildlife are limited to 60 days and may only be extended after consultation with the State and an opportunity for public comment, including a public meeting, near the affected NPS unit.

The following table summarizes the changes from the proposed rule regarding procedures to implement closures or restrictions in § 13.50:

Proposed rule procedures Final rule procedures Applicability Applies only to closures pertaining to weapons, camping, and taking of fish or wildlife Applies to all closures or restrictions except when more specific procedures apply in 36 CFR part 13. Factors used to determine whether to close an area or restrict an activity Includes protecting the integrity of naturally-functioning ecosystems as an appropriate reason for a closure or restriction Retains factors in existing regulations at 13.50. Written determinations Not required Requires a written determination explaining the reason for the proposed closure/restriction in nonemergency situations. This determination will be posted on www.nps.gov. Emergency Closures or Restrictions May not exceed 60 days Duration of the emergency, except for emergency closures or restrictions on taking fish or wildlife, which may not exceed 60 days. Restrictions on Taking Fish or Wildlife (nonemergency) Consultation with the State and opportunity for public comment prior to adopting a closure or restriction Consultation with the State and opportunity for public comment, including one or more public meetings near the affected NPS unit, prior to implementing a closure or restriction. Notice Closures or restrictions will be effective upon publication on park website Some closures or restrictions will be effective upon publication on park websites, but other closures or restrictions may be posted on a park website prior to taking effect, to give the public adequate time to understand and comply with them. A list of closures and restrictions will be compiled in writing and updated annually, and will be posted on the park websites. Update Subsistence Regulations to Reflect Federal Management

The rule updates the subsistence provisions in NPS regulations (36 CFR 13.470, 13.480, and 13.490) to reflect the federal government's assumption of the management and regulation of subsistence take of fish and wildlife under ANILCA and the transfer of subsistence management under Title VIII from the State to the Federal Subsistence Board. The rule makes other non-substantive, editorial changes to the language in 36 CFR 13.490 to streamline, clarify, and better organize this section.

Allowing the Use of Native Species as Bait for Fishing

NPS regulations generally prohibit the use of many forms of bait for fishing to help protect against the spread of nonnative species. Fish eggs from native species (usually salmon), are commonly used for fishing in Alaska. This rule allows the use of local native species as bait for fishing.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section explains some of the principal elements of the rule in a question and answer format.

Why is this rule necessary?

The rule responds to State hunting regulations that authorize wildlife harvest practices that conflict with ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting, the statutory purposes for which national preserves were established, and the NPS Organic Act as implemented by the NPS. These include liberalized predator harvest seasons, bear baiting, and the harvest of caribou while swimming. National park areas are managed for natural ecosystems and processes, including wildlife populations. The NPS legal and policy framework prohibits reducing native predators for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species.

As discussed above, the rule also responds to a number of other regulatory needs, by updating and streamlining closure procedures, updating subsistence provisions to reflect the program's actual management, prohibiting interference with lawful hunting consistent with State law, and allowing use of native species as bait for fishing.

Does this rule restrict subsistence harvest of wildlife under Title VIII of ANILCA?

No.

Does this rule prohibit all hunting under State regulations on national preserves in Alaska?

No. This rule restricts certain methods of harvest currently allowed on national preserves by the State of Alaska under its general hunting regulations. These include the taking of any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, taking brown and black bears over bait, taking wolves and coyotes between May 1 and August 9, harvest of swimming caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power, and using dogs to hunt black bears. Additionally, State laws or regulations involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans will not apply in national preserves, pursuant to this rule. These restrictions will affect a very small percentage of hunting practices authorized by State regulation and less than six percent of the lands in Alaska that are open to hunting.

What regulations apply to hunting and trapping in national preserves?

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) applies to sport hunting and trapping in national preserves. State harvest laws and regulations (Alaska Statute Title 16 and Alaska Administrative Code Title 5 AAC) that are consistent with 36 CFR also apply on national preserves. ANILCA Title VIII subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife by Federally-qualified rural residents is authorized in national preserves in Alaska under 36 CFR part 13 and 50 CFR part 100. Please contact the park chief ranger for additional information or assistance.

Do I still have to use the State regulations book when hunting on national preserves?

Yes. State hunting regulations apply to national preserves except when in conflict with federal regulation. Please contact the park chief ranger for additional information or assistance.

Does this rule restrict intensive management of predators on NPS lands?

Yes. Consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006, the NPS Organic Act, and the statutory purposes for which national preserves were established, this rule prohibits predator reduction activities on national preserves that have the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans.

What is the authority for the NPS to restrict hunting and trapping in this rule?

The NPS Organic Act authorizes the NPS to promulgate regulations that are necessary and proper for the use and management of National Park System units, including national preserves in Alaska, for the purpose of conserving the wild life and providing for the enjoyment of the wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101(a) and 100751. ANILCA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to promulgate regulations prescribing restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, or trapping for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 3201 and 3202.

The rule says that State laws or management actions involving predator reduction are not adopted in national preserves. How will I know if a State law involves predator reduction?

The Regional Director will compile a list updated at least annually of State laws and regulations that are not adopted in national preserves. This list will be posted at www.nps.gov and available upon request at NPS park headquarters.

I live in a nonrural area and hunt under State subsistence regulations. Does this rule restrict my subsistence harvest practices?

Title VIII of ANILCA limits subsistence activities to local rural residents. This rule does not restrict federally-qualified subsistence users who are hunting in accordance with federal subsistence regulations. But those persons living in nonrural areas (who therefore are not federally-qualified subsistence users) must comply with the restrictions in this rule. For example, only federally qualified subsistence users hunting under federal subsistence regulations will be able to take swimming caribou within national preserves, for all others this practice will now be prohibited in national preserves.

How is hunting on national preserves different than hunting on State land?

Hunting in national preserves is different than on State (or private) lands because NPS regulations also apply and govern in the event of a conflict with State law or regulation. However, harvest opportunities and practices in national preserves vary little from practices allowed under State law, except for some very specific circumstances for which where the NPS has issued regulations. For example, same-day airborne hunting of big game animals, arctic fox, red fox, and lynx has not been allowed on NPS lands since 1995. This rule adds several additional NPS regulations prohibiting the following harvest practices that are allowed under State law: (1) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, (2) taking brown bears and black bears over bait, (3) taking wolves and coyotes from May 1 through August 9, (4) harvest of swimming caribou and harvest of caribou from a moving motorboat by those other than local rural residents in those portions of Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge Preserves that are within GMUs 23 and 26, and (5) using dogs to hunt black bears.

Black bear baiting has been allowed for more than three decades. Why is the NPS prohibiting it now?

The NPS proposed prohibiting the harvest of brown bears over bait to avoid public safety issues, to avoid food-conditioning bears and other species, and to maintain natural bear behavior as required by NPS law and policy. Other land and wildlife management agencies strive to eliminate the feeding of bears through individual and collective educational efforts due to the increased likelihood that food-conditioned bears will be killed by agency personnel or the public in defense of life or property. Food-conditioned bears are also believed more likely to cause human injury. Baiting tends to occur in accessible areas used by multiple user groups, which contributes to the public safety concerns associated with baiting. The concerns presented with taking brown bears over bait also apply to black bear baiting. After reviewing public comment, the final rule prohibits taking both black bears and brown bears over bait in national preserves.

Why is the NPS prohibiting the take of swimming caribou by individuals who are not federally qualified subsistence users?

Taking swimming big game is already generally prohibited by State law, but there are exceptions in State law for the take of swimming caribou in GMUs 23 and 26, which include portions of Noatak, Bering Land Bridge, and Gates of the Arctic National Preserves. This method of harvest remains available to federally qualified subsistence users in their pursuit of food. However, as is further explained below, this method is one of those that NPS has found is not consistent with ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting in national preserves.

Does this rule impact fishing in NPS units in Alaska?

Yes. This rule allows federally qualified subsistence users to use native species as bait for fishing in accordance with federal subsistence regulations. Others will also be able to use native species for bait when such use is in accordance with non-conflicting State fishing regulations.

What procedures must the NPS follow to adopt closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska?

The procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 apply to all closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska, unless there are more specific procedures stated elsewhere in law or regulation. For example, the following regulations have specific procedures:

• Unattended or abandoned property, 36 CFR 13.45

• Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, dog teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses, 36 CFR 13.460

• Subsistence use of timber and plant material, 36 CFR 13.485

• Closure to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife, 36 CFR 13.490

What closures or restrictions will require notice and comment rulemaking that is published in the Federal Register?

Any nonemergency closure or restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude, and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area; adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic, or cultural values; or require a long-term modification in the resource management objectives of the area.

Doesn't ANILCA require public hearings prior to adopting closures or restrictions?

Public hearings near the affected vicinity are required before restricting: (1) Subsistence harvest of fish or wildlife under Title VIII of ANILCA or (2) access authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3170 (a) of ANILCA. There is no statutory requirement for a public hearing for other types of closures or restrictions.

Did the NPS eliminate a requirement for public hearings in the affected areas before adopting closures or restrictions relating to the take of fish and wildlife?

The proposed rule included a requirement to provide an opportunity for public comment on potential restrictions to taking fish or wildlife. Public comment may include written comments, a public meeting, a public hearing, or a combination thereof. Based upon public comment and to be more consistent with the practices of the BOG and the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS modified the proposed rule to provide that the opportunity for comment must include at least one public meeting near the affected NPS unit in nonemergency situations. This is a change from the existing regulations, which require a public hearing. Requiring a “meeting” instead of a “hearing” provides more flexibility on how the event is structured. During the public hearings conducted in 2014, the NPS received feedback that some local communities prefer a less formal approach and more opportunities for dialog with NPS managers. The NPS believes the term “meeting” more appropriately describes this type of informational exchange. The NPS also believes the term public meeting is broad enough to include a public hearing if that is more appropriate for the area.

Where can I find information about closures and restrictions?

Information about closures and restrictions is posted on each park's Web site at www.nps.gov. This information is also available upon request at NPS park headquarters.

Why did the NPS delete the references to State law in the subsistence regulations?

The NPS deleted the provisions adopting non-conflicting State law because the State no longer manages subsistence harvest under Title VIII of ANILCA. Subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife on federal public lands is generally regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board.

Is the NPS required to consult with the State prior to adopting closures or restrictions to taking fish or wildlife?

Yes, except in the case of emergencies.

Is the NPS required to consult with tribes and ANCSA Native Corporations?

Yes, the NPS is required to consult with tribes if an NPS action would have a substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. Consultation with ANCSA Native Corporations is required if an NPS action would have a substantial direct effect on ANCSA Native Corporation lands, waters, or interests.

Is the NPS required to consult with affected user groups, such as Regional Advisory Committees, Subsistence Resource Commissions, hunting organizations, or other nongovernmental organizations?

While this kind of consultation is not required by law, the NPS regards the input from these advisory and other groups as invaluable. The NPS encourages these groups to engage with park managers on topics of interest. The NPS also invites and encourages these committees and groups to provide input on decisions affecting public use of NPS managed lands as outlined in this final rule.

Summary of and Responses to Public Comments

A summary of substantive comments and NPS responses is provided below followed by a table that sets out changes we have made to the proposed rule based on the analysis of the comments and other considerations.

Consultation

1. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS did not adequately consult with the State of Alaska prior to publishing the proposed rule and in doing so, acted inconsistently with ANILCA, the Master Memorandum of Understanding between the NPS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Executive Order 12866.

NPS Response: The NPS respects its responsibility to consult with the State (and others) regarding NPS actions, especially given that wildlife management in NPS units is a responsibility that is shared between the NPS and the State. Publication of the proposed rule provided an opportunity for consultation between the NPS and the State. The NPS and the ADF&G met shortly after the publication of the proposed rule, which is consistent with ANILCA's consultation requirement. 16 U.S.C. 3201. The NPS has engaged in ongoing communications with the ADF&G, the BOG, the State of Alaska ANILCA Implementation Program, and the State of Alaska Citizen's Advisory Commission on Federal Areas for a number of years regarding the issues that this rule addresses.

Executive Order 12866 requires federal agencies to “seek views of appropriate State, local, and tribal governments before imposing regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities.” Sec. 1(b)(9). As discussed below, the Office of Management and Budget determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to this requirement. Regardless, the NPS invited the views of State, local, and tribal governments before publishing this final rule, and also complied with its responsibilities under section 4 of the Executive Order by including the proposed rule in the Unified Regulatory Agenda that was published by the Office of Management and Budget on reginfo.gov.

The NPS signed and implemented the Master Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU) with the ADF&G in 1982. The MMOU states that the ADF&G will manage wildlife on NPS managed lands for natural species diversity and natural process. The NPS agreed to recognize ADF&G as having the primary responsibility to manage wildlife on lands in the State and utilize the State's regulatory process to the maximum extent possible. Both agencies agreed to coordinate planning to minimize conflicts from differing legal mandates and consult with each other when developing regulations. The NPS continues to recognize the State as having primary responsibility to manage fish and wildlife on lands in the State. However, the State's responsibility is not exclusive and it does not preclude federal regulation of wildlife on federal public lands, as is well-established in the courts and specifically stated in ANILCA. The NPS also attempted to utilize the State regulatory process to notify the BOG when proposals created a conflict with NPS laws, regulations, and policies, years before the publication of the proposed rule. During this time NPS requested that the conflicts be resolved, as a first resort, through the State regulatory process. Only after conflicts could not be resolved through that process, and the BOG suggested the NPS could use its own authority to meet is mandates for managing wildlife, did the NPS consider modifications to federal regulations to resolve the conflicts.

2. Comment: Some commenters stated that the NPS did not adequately consult with tribes, various advisory committees, and rural residents prior to publishing the proposed rule.

NPS Response: NPS has an obligation to consult with tribes prior to making a decision that would have a substantial direct effect on federally-recognized tribes. Even though the NPS determined that the proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on tribes, the NPS initiated consultation shortly after publication of the proposed rule. The NPS emailed a letter to tribes inviting them to consult and notifying them of two statewide conference calls dedicated to tribal consultation in the fall of 2014. No one provided comments or asked questions during the first call. On the second call, four individuals who serve as members of tribal councils provided comments. Park managers also contacted tribes with ties to the park areas by phone, email, and letter to invite them to consult. NPS met in person with three tribes that requested additional consultation. The NPS also provided information to affected Subsistence Resource Commissions and Regional Advisory Councils beginning when the first temporary wildlife harvest restrictions were considered in 2010, and provided periodic updates throughout the process. Since these harvest restrictions were first proposed, the NPS stated its intention to initiate rulemaking and solicited public comment on these provisions. After the proposed rule was published, the NPS provided 121 days for written comment, met with and provided information to multiple groups, and held an additional 26 public hearings across the State, in rural locations near affected units as well as Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and Soldotna.

3. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS did not respond to comments and questions from the State of Alaska on the temporary wildlife harvest restrictions that were included in the proposed rule, which might have enabled the State to take action that would make the proposed harvest restrictions unnecessary. Commenters also suggested the NPS work with the State of Alaska collaboratively to address the wildlife harvest issues in this rule.

NPS Response: The NPS would have preferred a collaborative approach with a solution in State law or regulation rather than federal regulation. To that end, the NPS has testified before the Board of Game many times, requested the Board of Game take specific regulatory action to address NPS concerns, met with ADF&G, provided explanations for the restrictions in writing, and responded to comments in the annual park compendiums. The NPS acknowledges the State requested scientific data to support the temporary restrictions on taking black bears, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, taking brown bears over bait, and prohibiting the take of wolves and coyotes during the summer months. However, neither the temporary restrictions nor this rule are based on particular wildlife population levels, and do not require the preparation of such scientific data. The basis of the compendium provisions, as well as the rule, is the NPS legal and policy framework, which has been communicated verbally and in writing several times.

Process for Publishing the Proposed Rule

4. Comment: Several comments stated that the NPS should give more weight to comments on the proposed rule from Alaskans than other members of the public. Another comment urged the NPS to increase cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans. Others expressed concern that the NPS is not considering public comments when developing the final rule, and did not adequately respond to public comments delivered at public meetings.

NPS Response: The NPS agrees that it will continue to strive to increase cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans, many of whom live near the national preserves and may be affected by this rule. After consideration of public comments on the proposed rule, the NPS has included a provision in the final rule requiring it hold one or more public meetings near the affected NPS unit before implementing any non-emergency closure or restriction on the sport take of fish or wildlife in national preserves.

During the comment periods for the proposed rule, the NPS held 26 public hearings in Alaska in an effort to solicit the opinions and comments of Alaskans. The NPS has considered all relevant comments it received on the proposed rule, including those from rural Alaskans and those delivered at public meetings. The NPS considers each comment based upon its substantive content, and does not give greater weight to any comment based upon the residence of the commenter. This is also consistent with the statutory purpose for establishing the national preserves in Alaska for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration of present and future generations of all Americans.

5. Comment: Some comments stated that the NPS did not provide the public with sufficient time to review and comment on the proposed rule. Other comments felt that the NPS should not be allowed to make changes to the proposed rule without allowing the public to review and comment on those changes.

NPS Response: The policy of the U.S. Department of the Interior is ordinarily to provide at least 60 days for public comment on any proposed rule that is published in the Federal Register. Due to the anticipated interest in this rule, the NPS provided an initial comment period of 90 days so that the public would have additional time to consider the proposal and submit timely comments. After the initial 90-day comment period expired, the NPS received several requests to reopen the comment period to give the public more time to review and prepare comments. Acknowledging the interest in this rule, the NPS agreed with these requests and reopened the comment period for an additional 31 days. In total, the NPS provided the public with 121 days to review and comment on the proposed rule, and appreciates the thoughtful consideration and responses it received. The NPS believes that the length of the combined public comment period was adequate and does not intend to reopen, for a second time, the public comment period.

After considering public comments and after additional review, the NPS made certain changes to the proposed rule, which are described in the section below entitled “Changes from the Proposed Rule.” The changes are a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, and were reasonably foreseeable by the public when the proposed rule was published. For example, the NPS specifically requested comment on taking black bears over bait in the proposed rule. This notified the public that the proposed rule could change with respect to this issue after consideration of public comment. Other changes to the proposed rule, such as requiring a public meeting before adopting a closure or restriction for taking wildlife, are consistent with the existing regulations at 36 CFR 13.50.

Comments on Guiding Laws and Regulations

6. Comment: Some commenters stated that NPS does not have the authority to supersede State wildlife regulations, while others requested the NPS clarify its authority to preempt conflicting State regulations under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the Constitution.

NPS Response: Under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, State wildlife laws that conflict with NPS's efforts to carry out its statutory mandate are preempted. See, e.g. Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976); Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96 (1928); New Mexico State Game Comm'n v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, New Mexico State Game Comm'n v. Hickel, 396 U.S. 961 (1969); United States v. Brown, 552 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1977). Certain State-authorized hunting and trapping practices are not consistent with the NPS implementation of the NPS Organic Act and ANILCA. Consequently, the final rule is an appropriate exercise of the authority affirmed by the cases cited above.

7. Comment: Several commenters questioned how any take of wildlife on national preserve lands is permissible when regulations that may “alter the natural predator/prey dynamics, distribution, densities, age-class distributions, populations, genetics or behavior of a species” are interpreted as being incompatible with the laws and policies of the National Park Service.

NPS Response: ANILCA provides for harvest of wildlife in national preserves. Therefore some level of take is appropriate and compatible with the NPS legal and policy framework for Alaska national preserves. This rule does not prohibit all State-authorized hunting and trapping. The vast majority of State regulations are, and are expected to remain, compatible with the NPS management framework. Over the past several decades, only a handful of State regulations have been superseded by NPS regulations.

The NPS believes that the standard in the rule is a workable and limited standard that satisfies our legal and policy framework and does not include all actions that result in the harvest of wildlife. This rule provides that the NPS does not adopt State management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife, which are related to predator reduction efforts, meaning that they have the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. The NPS acknowledges that the public would benefit from greater clarity as to exactly which State laws and regulations are not adopted by the NPS. As a result, the rule requires the Regional Director to publish at least annually a list of all such laws and regulations not adopted in national preserves.

General Comments

8. Comment: Some commenters objected to the NPS description that some of the harvest practices, such as taking swimming caribou and hunting caribou from a motorboat while under power, are “longstanding prohibited.”

NPS Response: The harvest methods prohibited by this rule stem from general hunting and trapping restrictions in State law and regulation, some of which have been relaxed in recent years in response to proposals to the BOG. Some of these proposals to relax hunting and trapping restrictions were adopted in whole or in part to reduce predators. Three of these proposals removed longstanding prohibitions on harvest methods. In response, the NPS prohibited these methods on a temporary basis: (1) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; (2) taking brown bears over bait; and (3) taking wolves and coyotes during the summer months. This rule makes the temporary restrictions permanent. This rule also prohibits some additional practices that the NPS acknowledges were not historically prohibited. These practices, however, existed only as exceptions to general prohibitions in State law: (1) Taking swimming caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power, in GMUs 23 and 26; (2) black bear baiting; and (3) using dogs to hunt black bears. For the reasons explained herein, NPS believes these practices should also now be prohibited in national preserves.

9. Comment: Some comments stated that the hunting methods that would be prohibited by the proposed rule were not intended to reduce predators but were allowed by the BOG based on requests from the Alaskans for additional harvest opportunity or to authorize traditional practices. Other comments stated the NPS proposed rule would prefer predators over ungulates. Others supported the proposed rule because it would prohibit harvest practices designed to reduce predators, which is inconsistent with NPS laws.

NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges many of the harvest practices recently authorized by the State were based in whole or in part on proposals from Alaskan hunters, some of whom may also be federally-qualified subsistence users. However, the record shows some of these proposals and the decisions to act on them were based wholly or in part on a desire to reduce predator populations, and often far in excess of any previous authorizations. Before the BOG authorized taking cubs and sows with cubs at den sites, it had only allowed this activity as part of a predator control program. (Findings of the Alaska Board of Game 2012-194-BOG, Board of Game Bear Conservation, Harvest, and Management Policy, expiration June 30, 2016 (January 18, 2012)). The State's decision to expand wolf and coyote seasons was based in part on a desire to elevate survival rates of moose and caribou calves.

As explained in the background section of this rule, NPS management policies prohibit the manipulation of wildlife populations, and require the NPS to protect natural abundances, distributions, densities, and populations of wildlife. This rule does not favor predators over ungulates, which would also violate NPS management policies. The rule is primarily focused on the take of predators because the allowances implemented by the State target predators, not ungulates. Even in these circumstances, the rule is consistent with NPS policy to allow for the fluctuation of natural populations of all species in national preserves, by prohibiting the purposeful decrease of predator populations to achieve (or attempt) an increase of ungulate populations to benefit hunters.

10. Comment: One commenter stated the NPS misinterpreted the State sustained yield mandate in the proposed rule and requested the NPS clarify the State's statutory definition to make it clear the State has authority to manage for a variety of beneficial uses of wildlife rather than only to support a high level of human harvest of wildlife.

NPS Response: NPS acknowledges that the State may have broader authorities and goals, but in general, interpretation and clarification of State law is a matter for the State. This rule ensures that taking of wildlife in national preserves is consistent with federal laws and NPS policies that require the NPS to manage national preserves for natural processes.

11. Comment: Several commenters directly or indirectly commented on State-authorized subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. Some commenters suggested ANILCA authorizes State subsistence separate from Title VIII subsistence. Some comments stated the proposed rule restricts subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. Some commenters stated that federally qualified subsistence users often prefer to harvest wildlife under State regulations because the State regulations are more liberal than federal subsistence regulations and the Federal Subsistence Board regulatory process is cumbersome and takes too long. Conversely, some subsistence hunters voiced support for the proposed regulations as they do not consider some of the methods prohibited by this rule to be traditional or consistent with natural processes and population dynamics.

NPS Response: ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. 3201, states that national preserves shall be managed “in the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve[.]” Under ANILCA and in this rule, the term “subsistence” refers only to subsistence activities authorized by Title VIII of ANILCA, which must comply with the federal subsistence regulations (among other things, they are restricted to rural Alaska residents). ANILCA did not authorize any separate State subsistence activities. Take of wildlife is authorized in national preserves only to the extent it is consistent with either the federal subsistence regulations or with regulations applicable to taking of wildlife for “sport purposes.”

The NPS acknowledges that some rural residents eligible to harvest wildlife under federal subsistence regulations in NPS units also harvest wildlife under State regulations in national preserves, particularly when the State methods, seasons, and bag limits are more liberal. To the extent that this harvest does not conflict with NPS regulations applicable to sport hunting, these opportunities are preserved. Any changes to federal subsistence regulations should be proposed to the Federal Subsistence Board.

12. Comment: Some commenters objected to the use of the term “sport hunting” in the proposed rule as offensive and inaccurate in certain cases such as when a federal subsistence user moves out of the area and is no longer eligible to harvest under federal subsistence regulations.

NPS Response: The NPS understands that some hunters who harvest wildlife under State regulations are not hunting for recreation or “sport.” Sometimes individuals who are harvesting under State regulations were once rural residents but are no longer federally qualified subsistence users. However, Congress used the term “sport purposes” in ANILCA and it would be inappropriate for the NPS to allow harvest that is neither for “subsistence purposes” nor for “sport purposes” under 16 U.S.C. 3201.

13. Comment: Some commenters supported the prohibition on the methods of take in the proposed rule because they are unsporting or unethical; others stated the NPS should not regulate ethics regarding wildlife harvest.

NPS Response: Although the term “sport” is not defined in ANILCA, each term in a statute is presumed to have meaning. Sportsmanship in hunting has more than a hundred years of tradition and meaning in the conservation movement in America. See John F. Reiger, American Sportsmen and the Origin of Conservation (Winchester Press 1975). When methods of harvest go beyond traditionally accepted norms of “sport” in hunting, they may fall outside of what Congress intended when it authorized hunting in statutes like ANILCA. In some such cases, NPS believes regulations may be needed to curtail these activities that were never intended to occur in units of the National Park System. Such situations historically have been rare. Except for the prohibition of same-day airborne hunting in 1995, the NPS has not restricted the practices authorized by the State through federal rulemaking published in the CFR. There has, however, been a departure in recent years by the BOG, which has sought to advance the goals of increasing harvested species by targeting predators. In order to comply with federal law and NPS policy, these recent allowances have been prohibited by the NPS in national preserves on a temporary basis through compendium actions, and are now permanently prohibited by this rule.

The NPS also recognizes that some practices that are being prohibited for “sport” hunters may be appropriate for subsistence users. An example of this is taking swimming caribou. On NPS lands, the take of swimming caribou for subsistence is allowed in accordance with federal subsistence regulations, but it is not appropriate as a “sport” hunting practice on waters within national preserves.

14. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would prohibit Alaska residents from participating in State subsistence fisheries.

NPS Response: This rule makes no changes to fishing regulations other than allowing the use of native species as bait for fishing. Fishing in NPS units under federal subsistence regulations must be in accordance with 36 CFR 13.470 and 50 CFR part 100. Other noncommercial fishing is authorized under 36 CFR 13.40 and in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 2.3. To the extent it is consistent with those regulations, State-authorized subsistence fishing is allowed within NPS units.

15. Comment: Some commenters asserted that NPS does not have authority to enact the proposed regulations and that the NPS actions are inconsistent with 16 U.S.C. 3114 and 16 U.S.C. 3125(3) of ANILCA.

NPS Response: This final rule is not promulgated under 16 U.S.C. 3114, which provides that subsistence take of fish and wildlife has priority over other uses when it is necessary to restrict the harvest of fish or wildlife to protect the viability of the population or to continue subsistence uses. The restrictions in this rule are not necessary to protect the viability of a population or to continue Title VIII subsistence uses, nor do they affect subsistence uses or priority. The NPS is promulgating this rule under the NPS Organic Act and 16 U.S.C. 3201, which provide NPS with authority to restrict the taking of wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.

Similarly, 16 U.S.C. 3125(3) does not apply to this rule. That provision provides that “[n]othing in this title shall be construed as . . . authorizing a restriction on the taking of fish and wildlife for nonsubsistence uses . . . unless necessary for the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife . . . to continue subsistence uses of such populations [.]” The phrase “this title” refers solely to Title VIII of ANILCA—this section does not apply to 16 U.S.C. 3201, which was enacted as part of Title XIII. This section thus does not preclude the NPS from authorizing restrictions under other titles in ANILCA (such as Title XIII) or other federal laws (such as the NPS Organic Act), as is the case here.

16. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should limit hunting to traditional harvest methods because current technology could result in overharvest. Commenters also stated that resources should be allocated to most local users when harvest must be reduced.

NPS Response: In consultation with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS will consider restrictions on specific harvest practices on a case by case basis. In times of shortage ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. 3114, provides priority to local subsistence users over others.

17. Comment: Some commenters objected to the statement in the proposed rule that management of wildlife on national preserves must protect natural processes, because ANILCA calls for “healthy” populations, not “natural” populations.

NPS Response: Title VIII of ANILCA refers to conserving “healthy” populations of wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska. ANILCA also states that nothing in the statute modifies or repeals any federal law governing the conservation or protection of fish and wildlife. The statute explicitly identifies the NPS Organic Act as one of those federal laws. The NPS Organic Act requires the NPS to conserve the wild life in units of the National Park System (including national preserves) and to provide for visitor enjoyment of the wild life for this and future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101. Policies implementing the NPS Organic Act require the NPS to protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006 §§ 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The legislative history of ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to modify the NPS Organic Act in this respect: “the Committee recognizes that the policies and legal authorities of the managing agencies will determine the nature and degree of management programs affecting ecological relationships, population's dynamics, and manipulations of the components of the ecosystem.” Senate Report 96-413, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at pages 232-233 (hereafter Senate Report 96-413). This is reflected in the statutory purposes of various national preserves that were established by ANILCA, which include the protection of populations of fish and wildlife.

18. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule includes ambiguous terms and gives too much discretion to park superintendents.

NPS Response: The NPS believes the actions the superintendents are authorized to take in the rule are consistent with federal law and are comparable to the actions superintendents have long been authorized to take in similar circumstances. It also recognizes that superintendents are the subject matter experts regarding management of the park unit and have been delegated responsibility to take action and respond to changing circumstances that may affect the values and resources of a park unit.

19. Comment: Some commenters questioned the basis of the proposed rule because the NPS did not cite or provide evidence or data related to wildlife population-level effects or any conservation concern.

NPS Response: As discussed above, the rule is based on the NPS legal and policy framework, which among other things “requires implementation of management policies which strive to maintain natural abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological integrity of native animals as part of their ecosystem . . . .” Senate Report 96-413, at page 171. This rule is not based on particular wildlife population levels, and did not require the preparation of data on those levels. Rather the rule reflects the NPS responsibility to manage national preserves for natural processes, including predator-prey relationships, and responds to practices that are intended to alter those processes.

20. Comment: A couple of commenters asked for clarification about the harvest opportunities that would be prohibited by the proposed rule on a unit by unit basis.

NPS Response: The NPS believes the rule clearly describes the harvest practices that are prohibited. All but three of these practices are already prohibited by either NPS temporary actions or existing State law. The only currently allowed harvest practices that will be prohibited under this rule are taking caribou that are swimming or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power (currently allowed in portions of Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge National Preserves), black bear baiting, and using dogs to hunt black bears. The NPS will assist the public to understand the impacts of the rule on sport harvest of wildlife in national preserves. The public and visitors are encouraged to contact or visit the local NPS offices for information or assistance.

21. Comment: One commenter opposed the prohibition on the take of muskrats at pushups, adding that this practice has been authorized by the State since 1967 and that the practice is not known to have caused conservation or user problems.

NPS Response: The proposed rule would have prohibited the take of muskrats at pushups, which is currently authorized under State regulations. This was not the NPS's intent, and the final rule has been modified to allow for this practice.

22. Comment: One commenter stated the allowance in the proposed rule for using electronic calls to take big game (except moose) should be modified to allow electronic calls for all game (except moose).

NPS Response: The NPS agrees with the suggestion, which is consistent with State law. The NPS has modified the rule accordingly.

23. Comment: Some commenters objected to the practice of trapping and snaring generally due to the potential for user conflicts and safety concerns due to traps and snares on or near trails. Some commenters specifically objected to snaring bears. Some commenters said trapping should not be allowed near trails used by others in order to protect those visitors and their pets. Some commenters said trappers should be required to identify their traps with their name and contact information.

NPS Response: ANILCA generally allows for trapping (including snaring) in national preserves. Under this rule and adopted State law, there are restrictions on animals that may be trapped under a trapping license, types of traps, as well as restrictions on locations where traps may be set. Because pets are required to be leashed, traps—even those set near trails—have not been a concern historically. In the event that trapping presents safety concerns, the NPS will address those concerns on a case-by-case basis.

24. Comment: Commenters suggested there is an inconsistency between what is being proposed for NPS lands in Alaska and allowances in some Lower 48 parks, including taking coyotes year-round.

NPS Response: Units of the National Park System are “united through their interrelated purposes and resources into one National Park System,” and managed in a manner “consistent with and founded in the purpose established by” the NPS Organic Act, “to the common benefit of all the people of the United States.” 54 U.S.C. 100101. But units also are managed consistent with their enabling statutes and other laws specifically applicable to those units, such as ANILCA. Hunting of any kind is generally prohibited in units of the National Park System, 36 CFR 2.2, except where specifically authorized by statute, as is the case for national preserves in Alaska (as well as subsistence activities in other Alaska units). In those units that do allow hunting, hunting seasons for particular species generally vary from unit to unit and are often set by State law. When NPS sets seasons or other restrictions by regulation, it does so case by case, based on the resource and management needs of the particular unit.

25. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the rule should prohibit the more subtle means of affecting the natural functioning ecosystem, such as hunters not being required to obtain tags or permits for predators, same-day airborne hunting and trapping, and sale of raw hides and skulls.

NPS Response: Many of the activities described by the commenter are already prohibited under federal regulations. For example, same-day airborne hunting of big game animals, arctic fox, red fox, or lynx is not allowed on NPS lands. Additionally, sale of raw hides and skulls is not allowed under existing NPS regulations. The NPS has not identified a need for NPS-issued tags and permits and consequently has not required harvest permits and tags beyond those required by State regulations and federal subsistence regulations.

26. Comment: One commenter said that while ungulates will probably remain the focus of the State's intensive management program, it is conceivable that another species could become the focus in the future due to fads or economic interests. The commenter suggested that NPS needs the flexibility to include additional species when necessary to provide for naturally functioning ecosystems.

NPS Response: While naturally functioning ecosystems include natural diversity and abundances of native wildlife populations, the NPS does not believe it is necessary to modify the proposed rule to address this concern. Should the issue arise in the future, the NPS will work with the State and consider appropriate action at that time.

27. Comment: One commenter suggested adding “intercepting” wildlife to the list of prohibited actions that cannot be taken by an aircraft, snowmachine, or other motor vehicle. Also, the term “positioning” is used to refer to the practice of using snowmachines for lining caribou up for a shot. It should be clarified whether this practice is considered “herding.”

NPS Response: Paragraph (g)(4) of this rule prohibits using an aircraft, snowmachine, off-road vehicle, motorboat, or other motor vehicle to harass wildlife, including chasing, driving, herding, molesting, or otherwise disturbing wildlife. Using an aircraft, snowmachine, or other motor vehicle to “intercept” or “position” wildlife is prohibited by this provision, because the wildlife would be (among other things) harassed, chased, driven, herded, molested, or otherwise disturbed by the use of the aircraft, snowmachine, or motor vehicle. As a result, the NPS does not believe it is necessary to revise the proposed rule to specifically prohibit “intercepting” or “positioning” wildlife as these activities are already covered by the rule.

28. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should also address bag limits for certain species, such as wolves.

NPS Response: The NPS generally believes bag limits are more appropriately addressed through the State regulatory process and Federal Subsistence Program in conjunction with harvest information and population data. Should bag limits become a concern in the future, the NPS will work with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board as appropriate.

29. Comment: Some commenters objected to prohibiting the harvest methods identified in the proposed rule as unnecessary since they duplicate State regulations already in effect or would eliminate harvest opportunities for Alaskans.

NPS Response: The NPS affirms current State prohibitions on harvest methods by codifying them as federal law. Should exceptions to these State prohibitions be made in the future, the NPS will consider whether to adopt the same exceptions for national preserves. The majority of existing harvest opportunities provided under State law will still be available for hunters in national preserves.

Annual List of Harvest Regulations Not Adopted

30. Comment: Some commenters objected to the provision in the proposed rule requiring the Regional Director to compile an annual list of State laws and regulations that are not adopted in national preserves because they are aimed at reducing predators. Some comments suggested that the NPS hold public hearings and a public comment period before the Regional Director places laws and regulations on this list. Other commenters stated this provision is inconsistent with ANILCA and would give superintendents too much discretionary authority.

NPS Response: The provision requiring the Regional Director to identify State laws and regulations not adopted under paragraph (f) is designed to remove any ambiguity about which State-authorized activities are prohibited on national preserves. The NPS does not believe that a hearing or public comment period is appropriate for the annual list because these activities will be prohibited by paragraph (f)(2) without any further action by the NPS or the Regional Director. The purpose of the list is to inform the public about which laws and regulations are not adopted by the NPS so that there is no confusion about what is allowed in national preserves. The list is expected to change only to the extent the State authorizes new predator reduction activities that otherwise would affect national preserves. The overall goal of this provision is to maintain the traditional status quo and prevent the introduction of new predator reduction activities in national preserves.

ANILCA allows the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the NPS) to restrict sport hunting and trapping in national preserves after consultation with the State of Alaska, and does not diminish the authority of the Secretary of the Interior over the management of public lands. See the Background section of this final rule for more information about NPS authority to promulgate this rule. The NPS believes that compiling and annually updating a list of the activities prohibited by paragraph (f) is consistent with the statutory authority provided to the NPS for the management of national preserves.

Taking Bears Over Bait

31. Comment: Some commenters stated that the practice of baiting black bears and brown bears is appropriate because it will not have adverse ecological or public safety effects. Others commented that baiting black bears and brown bears should be prohibited because it may create public safety issues, food-conditioned bears, or impact natural populations or processes.

NPS Response: The NPS proposed prohibiting the harvest of brown bears over bait to avoid public safety issues, to avoid food conditioning bears and other species, and to maintain natural bear behavior as required by the NPS legal and policy framework. By design, baiting typically uses human or pet food to alter the natural behavior of bears to predictably attract them to a specific location for harvest. Land and wildlife management agencies strive to eliminate the feeding of bears through individual and collective educational efforts, due to the increased likelihood that food-conditioned bears are killed by agency personnel or the public in defense of life or property. Food-conditioned bears are also believed more likely to cause human injury. To that end, NPS regulations prohibit feeding wildlife and the practice of baiting is at odds with this.

Because the concerns presented by taking brown bears over bait also apply to black bear baiting, the NPS requested public comment on whether taking black bears over bait should be allowed to continue on national preserves. After reviewing public comment, the NPS has decided to prohibit taking black bears over bait in national preserves. This decision is consistent with State regulations applicable to Denali State Park, where taking of wildlife is authorized but taking black bears over bait is prohibited (see 2014-2015 Alaska Hunting Regulations, p. 27 and 78 and 5 AAC 92.044 for game management units where the practice is authorized).

Bait stations tend to be located in accessible areas due to the infrastructure (typically a 55 gallon drum) and quantity (including weight) of bait used to engage in this activity and the frequency with which the stations must be replenished. Because of the accessibility of these areas, they are typically used by multiple user groups, which contributes to the public safety concerns associated with baiting. Although there are State regulations that prohibit bait stations within a certain distance of structures (cabins/residences), roads, and trails, these distances lack biological significance relative to bears, whose home ranges can include tens to hundreds of square miles.

32. Comment: Some commenters stated that bear baiting should be allowed in national preserves because it is a historical practice that predates the establishment of national preserves and it a customary practice by many Alaskans. Commenters also stated the practice should be allowed because the amount of take is or would be small.

NPS Response: According to information provided by the State of Alaska, harvest of black bears over bait was authorized by State regulations in 1982. The creation of all NPS areas in Alaska preceded this date. Harvest of bears over the remains of legally-harvested animals not required to be salvaged will continue to be lawful provided the remains are not moved. To the extent the practice of baiting bears is a customary and traditional practice by rural residents, those uses may be authorized for Federally qualified rural residents pursuant to regulations adopted by the Federal Subsistence Board.

The NPS recognizes that the number of bears harvested over bait in national preserves may not be large. However, this provision is not based on how many bears are harvested or whether that harvest would impact bear population levels. It is based on the legal and policy framework that governs national preserves and calls for maintaining natural ecosystems and processes and minimizing safety concerns presented by food-conditioned bears.

33. Comment: One commenter recommended the definition of bait exclude legally taken fish and that bait should exclude legally taken wildlife that is not required to be salvaged under federal as well as State law. A comment was received that game that died of natural causes should not be considered bait.

NPS Response: The NPS has modified the definition of bait in a manner that excludes native fish, consistent with State law. Upon review, the NPS determined it is not necessary to reference State or federal law regarding salvage requirements in the definition of bait. The result is that parts of legally taken fish or wildlife that are not required to be salvaged are not considered bait if the parts are not moved from the kill site. The rule excludes from the definition of bait game that died of natural causes, if not moved from the location where it was found.

Taking Black Bears With Artificial Light at Den Sites

34. Comment: Some comments stated that the use of artificial light to aid the harvest of black bears in dens should be allowed to ensure proper species identification, prevent take of cubs or sows with cubs, and facilitate a human shot placement. Others commented that the use of artificial light to aid the harvest of black bears in dens should be prohibited due to effects on ecological processes and populations and the potential for dangerous orphaned cubs.

NPS Response: Although artificial light may, in some cases, aid the harvest of black bears in dens by assisting with species identification and shot placement, the NPS does not support authorizing this practice for sport hunting in national preserves. For rural subsistence users, the NPS believes this matter is more appropriately addressed by the Federal Subsistence Board. The final rule maintains the proposed prohibition on using artificial light to take wildlife, subject to certain exceptions.

Using Dogs To Hunt Black Bears

35. Comment: In response to a question in the proposed rule, some commenters supported the use of unleashed dogs to hunt black bears pursuant to a State permit. Some commenters stated that the use of dogs to hunt black bears has been allowed since 1970 and is not historically illegal. Other commenters opposed the use of dogs to hunt black bears. These comments stated that this activity would increase stress and trauma for the dogs and bears, reduce bear populations in national preserves, disrupt the natural balance of predator-prey dynamics, alter bear feeding patterns, harass other wildlife, transmit diseases to wildlife, interfere with other sport and subsistence hunters, and be dangerous for the dogs and humans in the area (including by driving bears into roadways and onto private property). Several comments stated that dogs used for hunting roam over large portions of the land, often out of the sight and control of their handlers. Some comments stated that this activity is unethical, unsportsmanlike, and does not have a traditional or cultural basis in Alaska. Other comments stated that dogs are often used to “tree” bears, which makes it difficult to determine the sex of the bear and could result in the killing of females with cubs.

NPS Response: Commenters are correct that using dogs to hunt black bears is not “historically illegal.” While State of Alaska law generally prohibits taking big game with the aid or use of a dog, there is an exception for using a dog to take black bears pursuant to a non-transferable permit issued by the ADF&G. The NPS agrees that this practice could have some of the adverse impacts suggested by commenters who oppose the practice. The NPS also believes the use of unleashed dogs to hunt black bears is one of the practices that is inconsistent with the traditional “sport hunting” that is authorized by ANILCA, as discussed above. The rule generally prohibits taking big game with the aid of use of a dog. The proposed rule has been modified to eliminate an exception that would have allowed the use of dogs to harvest black bears under a State permit.

36. Comment: Some commenters supported the use of unleashed dogs to hunt “problem animals” and the use of leashed dogs to hunt wounded black bears.

NPS Response: There is no allowance in State law to use unleashed dogs to hunt “problem animals.” Current State law allows use of a single, leashed dog in conjunction with tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal, including black bear. The intent of the leash requirement is to ensure that native wildlife are not pursued, harassed, or killed by unleashed dogs and to prevent any contact between native wildlife and domestic dogs. The State-authorized use of a single, leashed dog in conjunction with tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal will remain authorized in national preserves. The NPS will take appropriate action to protect the safety of park visitors and other wildlife from problem animals, such as bears.

37. Comment: Some commenters supported using sled dogs to travel to and from hunting and trapping areas, in search of game, and to haul out taken game, but not to chase wildlife.

NPS Response: Sled dogs are allowed under 16 U.S.C. 3121(b) of ANILCA for subsistence uses and under 16 U.S.C. 3170(a) of ANILCA for other traditional activities, unless prohibited or restricted on a site specific basis. There are currently no prohibitions or restrictions on this activity in areas where hunting and trapping are authorized. Herding, harassing, hazing, or driving wildlife is prohibited under NPS regulations. This includes “chasing” wildlife.

Wolves and Coyotes

38. Comment: Several commenters supported the limitations on taking wolves and coyotes in the proposed rule, and suggested additional protections such as extending the duration of the no-take period and imposing bag limits. These comments were concerned about hunting pressure, declining populations, and protecting pregnant females to avoid orphaned pups and unsuccessful rearing. Other commenters opposed the limitations on taking wolves and coyotes in the proposed rule, and suggested additional allowances for taking these species, including adoption of the State hunting seasons. Several commenters stated that extended hunting seasons for wolves and coyotes allow for a traditional form of hunting specifically authorized under the State subsistence program, and are not meant to be predator control.

NPS Response: The rule prohibits taking wolves and coyotes from May 1 through August 9. These dates reflect previously longstanding State harvest seasons that provided harvest opportunities while maintaining viable wolf and coyote populations. The rule maintains the decades-old management paradigm of State and federal managers, rather than adopting recently liberalized State regulations that lengthen the hunting seasons. Should wolf or coyote population levels become a concern in the future, the NPS will work with the State and consider appropriate action at that time.

39. Comment: Some commenters stated that coyotes are not native to Alaska.

NPS Response: Coyotes are native to North America, and while coyotes may not have historically occupied all of their current range, their expansion most likely occurred through natural processes. Consequently, the NPS manages coyotes in the same manner as other native species consistent with NPS Management Policies (§§ 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2).

40. Comment: A few commenters questioned whether wolf pelts taken during the denning season have limited value.

NPS Response: The NPS understands that some individuals may have uses for wolf pelts that are harvested outside the normal trapping season. This rule, however, protects wolves during the denning season when they are vulnerable. The rule preserves the opportunity to harvest wolves when the pelts are thicker for cold winter temperatures. A pelt that has begun to shed out for summer is thinner, may become patchy, and for these reasons is not generally considered as valuable.

Swimming Caribou

41. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed prohibition on taking swimming caribou would be difficult to enforce because the harvest opportunities are along the river's edge and animals often fall in the low spots or the water. Another commenter supported the prohibition, noting that there are sufficient opportunities for sport hunters to harvest caribou on land.

NPS Response: NPS agrees that there are adequate opportunities for sport hunters to harvest caribou on land. Although there may be a few situations where it is difficult to tell whether a caribou was taken while swimming, the NPS believes that the prohibition will be enforceable. Also, under existing State regulations, this practice is limited to waters in GMUs 23 and 26. Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge are the only national preserves within these GMUs. To the extent individuals who are not federally qualified subsistence users engage in this activity elsewhere (e.g., Onion Portage within Kobuk Valley National Park), such use is not authorized under existing NPS regulations, which allow only federally qualified subsistence users to hunt within certain national parks and monuments in Alaska.

42. Comment: Several commenters opposed the prohibition on the take of swimming caribou, stating that it would prevent those who no longer live in rural Alaska from harvesting foods in a traditional manner. Commenters stated that former residents would not be allowed to return to hunt or to assist elders with hunting in traditional ways. Other commenters supported the proposed prohibition of taking caribou while swimming, noting that it is unsporting and not consistent with fair chase.

NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that taking caribou while swimming is a customary and traditional subsistence practice in some areas of the State. The NPS supports continuation of this practice under federal subsistence regulations in NPS units. The NPS also agrees with the comment that the practice of taking caribou while swimming is not consistent with fair chase and thus believes it is not appropriate to allow as a sport hunting practice. Although former local residents who no longer qualify to hunt under federal subsistence regulations will not be able to engage in such subsistence harvests, they may participate in other aspects of the traditional practice.

Obstruction of Hunting

43. Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposed prohibition on obstructing hunting activities as unnecessary or providing special treatment to hunters. Others questioned the need for the provision because it is already in State law.

NPS Response: In the past, the NPS has received reports of individuals actively attempting to obstruct others from hunting. While this conduct is prohibited under State law, it is not currently prohibited under NPS regulations. Consequently, in the event of a violation of this type in a national preserve, only the State could take enforcement action. This rule allows the NPS also to take enforcement action. This protects the lawful rights of hunters in national preserves, but does not afford them special treatment above what they are currently entitled to by State law.

Bait for Fishing

44. Comment: Commenters generally supported using native species as bait for fishing. Some commenters suggested the species used should be obtained from the waters being fished to avoid introducing a species that is native to Alaska but not native to a particular watershed.

NPS Response: The NPS agrees that bait species should be limited to those native to Alaska, but does not believe that allowing the use of species not native to a particular watershed poses a risk that new species will be introduced into that watershed. Existing State and federal regulations already prohibit the use of live fish for bait in fresh water, and using dead fish or unfertilized eggs removed from a harvested fish will not result in the introduction of new species that are not native to a particular watershed. In marine waters, existing regulations already require that any fish used for bait come from the same waters being fished.

45. Comment: One commenter supported allowing bait for fishing but stated the rule is not necessary because State regulations that allow bait apply to NPS units.

NPS Response: Section 13.40(b) provides that fishing must be consistent with 36 CFR 2.3. Section 2.3 prohibits the use of live or dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, nonpreserved fish eggs or fish roe as bait for fishing in fresh waters, along with methods other than hook and line. Consequently this rule is necessary to allow the use of native species of fish or fish eggs as bait for fishing.

46. Comment: Some commenters supported the intent to allow bait for fishing since it is a common practice and commonly allowed in Alaska, but said it would create confusion on waters where the State has prohibited bait. These commenters also noted the State allows many forms of bait that would not be considered native species, such as natural or synthetic scents, and natural or processed vegetable matter.

NPS Response: NPS regulations adopt non-conflicting State regulations. Under existing NPS regulations, the use of bait is allowed in accordance with State law under 36 CFR 2.3 except for the use of fish, amphibians or their eggs. This rule allows the use of native fish, amphibians, and their eggs as bait if authorized by the State. If the State does not allow the use of these types of bait in waters within NPS areas, State law will govern and the use of native fish, amphibians, and their eggs as bait will not be allowed.

Updating Federal Subsistence Regulations

47. Comment: Some commenters opposed removal of regulatory language providing for consultation with the State regarding potential closures to subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. A suggestion was made to retain the provision adopting non-conflicting State laws for subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. A comment also suggested adding several provisions to the subsistence closure procedures in 36 CFR 13.490, including consultation with various stakeholders, holding public hearings in the affected vicinity, and holding hearings in coordination with other meetings.

NPS Response: The existing provision that adopts non-conflicting State laws is not necessary due to the assumption by the Federal Subsistence Board of regulatory authority over Title VIII subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. Federal subsistence regulations, which apply in NPS units where Title VIII subsistence is allowed, include regulatory language that adopts non-conflicting State laws. The provision in 36 CFR 13.490 is no longer necessary and will be removed by this rule.

Upon review of comments and considering the practices of the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS agrees with the recommendation to retain the language providing for consultation with the State prior to the NPS implementing closures to subsistence take of fish and wildlife. Because harvest is regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS has modified the proposed rule to also include consultation with the Federal Subsistence Board.

Finally, for consistency with 36 CFR 13.50, which was modified based upon comments (addressed below), the rule has been modified to specify that public hearings will be held near the affected park unit (rather than the “affected vicinity”) prior to implementing the management action in nonemergency situations.

Updating Closure and Restriction Procedures

48. Comment: Some commenters objected to the changes in 36 CFR 13.50 as inconsistent with ANILCA or not appropriate for Alaska.

NPS Response: The changes to 36 CFR 13.50 bring procedures for implementing closures and restrictions more in line with procedures that apply to the entire National Park System under 36 CFR 1.5, as well as procedures used by Alaska State Parks. 11 AAC 12.355. The public will benefit from aligning procedures with other NPS units as well as Alaska State Parks. This consistency will enable the public to more effectively engage managers regarding their uses of the public lands and the resources on them.

While commenters referred generally to the proposed changes as being inconsistent with ANILCA, the only provision cited was 16 U.S.C. 3202. That section contains general savings provisions preserving the Secretary's authority to manage public lands and preserving the State's non-conflicting authority to manage fish and wildlife on those lands. Nothing in that section is specifically relevant to the closure and restriction provisions of 36 CFR 13.50; accordingly the NPS finds no conflict between ANILCA and these procedural updates.

49. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would give too much authority to the superintendents to adopt restrictions, specifically on taking of fish or wildlife for sport purposes. Some commenters stated that closures or restrictions must be based upon demonstrated biological considerations (e.g., wildlife population data).

NPS Response: Federal statutes, including ANILCA, provide the NPS with substantial discretion in managing units of the National Park System. Generally, National Park System regulations need only be “necessary or proper for the use and management of System units.” 54 U.S.C. 100751. With respect to sport hunting in national preserves in Alaska, Congress authorized the NPS to restrict these activities for reasons of “public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.” 16 U.S.C. 3201. The NPS thus is not required to base its management decisions regarding these restrictions only on biological considerations. The rule maintains the superintendent's long established authority to make management decisions for NPS units based upon a variety of criteria. The NPS plans to continue to require review of all proposed closures and restrictions at the regional level.

50. Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the proposed changes to 36 CFR 13.50 would limit Alaskans' ability to comment on potential closures and restrictions on NPS-managed areas by shortening the comment period, soliciting comments from non-residents of Alaska, and reducing the number of public meetings.

NPS Response: While hearings are required in certain circumstances (e.g., restricting subsistence harvest of fish or wildlife under Title VIII of ANILCA or access authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3170(a)), there is no statutory requirement to take public comment on closures or restrictions that are not required to be published in the Federal Register. The NPS believes, however, that public involvement is an important component of managing NPS units. Alaskans and all Americans have an important say in how these national interest lands are managed. Accordingly, except in emergencies, the rule requires an opportunity for public comment, including holding at least one public meeting near the affected NPS unit, prior to adopting a closure or restriction related to taking fish or wildlife. The changes to § 13.50 will not limit any existing opportunities, including public meetings, for Alaskan residents to comment on proposed closures and restrictions for NPS units in Alaska. The NPS posts online proposed closures and restrictions for NPS units in Alaska and invites public comment on them. The NPS intends to continue this practice.

51. Comment: Some commenters objected to removing the requirement that the NPS hold a hearing before implementing closures or restrictions on taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes. Some were concerned that the NPS would cease meeting with local communities or that the change would give superintendents too much discretion to decide whether to meet with local communities. Some commenters stated the NPS should not consider the time or expense to the government or anticipated number of attendees in determining whether to hold public hearings.

NPS Response: The proposed rule would have replaced the existing regulatory requirement to hold a hearing in the affected vicinity with a requirement to provide an opportunity for public comment, which could include a written comment period, public meeting, public hearing, or a combination thereof. After reviewing comments and considering the similar procedures used by the BOG and the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS modified the proposed rule to add a requirement to hold one or more public meetings near the affected park unit prior to implementing a closure or restriction on taking fish and wildlife in national preserves, except in the case of emergencies. The NPS will attempt to hold public meetings in conjunction with other events, like Subsistence Resource Commission meetings, when possible. The NPS will consider holding more than one public meeting depending the nature of the action, local interest, and other opportunities for engagement. The rule will also require the NPS to continue the current practice of providing an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing proposed closures and restrictions related to taking fish and wildlife. The NPS intends to continue its current practice of accepting written comments submitted electronically or by mail or hand delivery. This will give Alaskans and other Americans an opportunity to provide meaningful input on these management actions.

52. Comment: Some comments suggested the NPS provide public notice and hold a hearing prior to adopting emergency closures relating to fish and wildlife.

NPS Response: Although the NPS supports providing the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment, in certain circumstances action may be necessary to protect wildlife or public safety before there is an opportunity for public comment or a hearing. The NPS will provide appropriate notice of emergency closures and restrictions in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 13.50.

53. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would eliminate a requirement to do written determinations stating the basis for closures, restrictions, and other designations.

NPS Response: Although the procedures in 36 CFR 1.5(c) require a written determination of need explaining the reasons for closures or restrictions on public use, the current procedures in § 13.50 do not. The NPS however, has provided such determinations for all proposed closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska to better inform the public about the reasons for its decisions. This comment highlights the complexity regarding the various procedural regulations that currently apply to NPS units in Alaska. The NPS believes it is in the public's interest to streamline procedures as much as possible in order to make them more consistent. This will make it easier for the public to be involved in NPS decision-making in Alaska. Accordingly, the NPS has decided to apply the procedures of 36 CFR 13.50, as revised in this rule, to all closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska unless a more specific regulation in part 13 provides otherwise (i.e., 36 CFR 13.490 pertaining to closures to subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife). These revised procedures that apply to all NPS units in Alaska require a written determination explaining the basis of the restriction.

54. Comment: Some commenters objected to utilizing web-based tools for information sharing and taking public comment since not all Alaskans have reliable internet. Other commenters objected to using the internet because it is easier for individuals outside Alaska to provide input. Some commenters interpreted the proposed rule to imply that the NPS will engage the public using social media exclusively.

NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges that some individuals, especially in rural Alaska, may not have reliable internet access or may prefer other methods of communicating with the NPS. The methods of providing notice in the rule are consistent with NPS practices in place in Alaska for more than a decade. The primary method of notifying the public of closures or restrictions has been posting notice online and disseminating press releases by email. It has been the practice for the NPS to invite public comment through electronic means as well as by mail or hand delivery. The majority of public comments are received electronically. The NPS will continue to accept written comments through electronic and traditional means (mail or hand delivery). The NPS will also use other notification procedures such as posting in local post offices and other public places when practical. Individuals may also request copies of the park compendium and other NPS documents by mail or in person. Social media is a valuable tool to inform as well as engage a certain segment of the public, but it is not, and will not be, the only way the NPS engages and communicates with the public. The NPS believes that using the internet will make it easier for some segments of the American public, regardless of residency, to provide input on proposed management actions for NPS units in Alaska. This is appropriate because National Park System units are federal lands that are protected and preserved for all Americans.

55. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the proposed rule should provide opening procedures.

NPS Response: The procedures in the rule apply to the termination and relaxation of closures and restrictions, which includes actions that open areas and allow activities that had been closed or restricted.

56. Comment: Some commenters suggested retaining the distinction between permanent and temporary restrictions. These commenters recommend temporary restrictions be limited to 12 months and rulemaking be required for all permanent restrictions or those restrictions in place longer than 12 months. Other comments stated the existing 30-day limitation on emergency closures should be retained with no extensions.

NPS Response: The categories distinguishing permanent and temporary closures or restrictions have been problematic and difficult to implement, as noted by the State and others during the annual compendium review process on several occasions. Under current regulations, closures or restrictions in place for more than 12 months must be implemented by rulemaking and cannot be extended, regardless of significance or public interest. The result of this structure is that the NPS must repropose and reissue temporary closures or restrictions each year, even in circumstances where there is little public interest in the action, or where the action is an insignificant management decision. The existing framework is overly rigid and complicated, and unnecessarily compromises the NPS's ability to protect resources and provide for public use and enjoyment. The NPS has determined that the criteria-based rulemaking structure that exists in the nationwide NPS regulations (and is mirrored by Alaska State Parks) provides a better framework. A criteria-based framework requires notice and comment rulemaking based on the impact the closure or restriction will have on the values, resources, and visitors of the park unit. This framework allows the superintendent to implement closures or restrictions that do not significantly impact values, resources, or visitor use without needing to publish a rule in the Federal Register or propose the same action again every year. For example, a prohibition on smoking near fuel storage tanks would not necessarily require a rulemaking, but closing an area to all sport harvest on a permanent basis would. The criteria-based framework allows managers to be more flexible and adapt to changing circumstances. The improved consistency with other NPS units and Alaska State Parks will also make it easier for the public to be involved in decision-making regarding the use of public lands in Alaska.

With regard to the duration of emergency closures, the NPS rule is more consistent with the practice of other agencies and NPS regulations that apply outside of Alaska. The existing regulations limit emergency closures to 30 days without extension. Federal subsistence regulations regarding subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife provide for emergency closures of up to 60 days and allow for extensions. National Park System-wide regulations and Alaska State Parks regulations do not provide a time limit on emergency closures. 36 CFR 1.5, 11 AAC 12.355. With respect to restrictions on taking fish and wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves, the NPS adopts the 60-day timeframe and allows for extensions—after consultation with the State and public comment (including a public meeting)—if the emergency persists. The NPS believes the public will benefit from this consistency with respect to emergency closures or restrictions on taking of fish or wildlife. Other emergency actions will have no explicit expiration date and may exist until the emergency is resolved. This is consistent with regulations for NPS units located outside of Alaska and for Alaska State Parks.

57. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should retain the provision requiring consultation with the State and with “representatives of affected user groups” prior to adopting restrictions on the take of wildlife for sport purposes, including Subsistence Resource Commissions, federal subsistence regional advisory councils, local fish and game advisory committees, tribes, and others. Some commenters also stated the NPS must implement the recommendations of Subsistence Resources Commissions unless the criteria of 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) apply.

NPS Response: 16 U.S.C. 3201 requires the NPS to consult with the State prior to prescribing restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, or trapping in national preserves. The rule does not eliminate that statutory requirement; it has moved this requirement into § 13.50 because it relates to closures and restrictions. The rule also requires the NPS to provide an opportunity for public comment, including one or more public meetings near the affected national preserve prior to implementing a closure or restriction on taking fish or wildlife. This will provide representatives of affected user groups an opportunity to provide comments to the NPS prior to the action being implemented. User groups are invited and encouraged to provide input on all such proposed actions.

The NPS agrees that input from advisory groups, NPS Subsistence Resource Commissions, and others is important and valuable and the NPS encourages these groups to engage with the park superintendents on topics of interest. The NPS, however, does not agree that the provisions of 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) apply as broadly as suggested. Under 16 U.S.C. 3118, Subsistence Resource Commissions are established for areas designated as national parks and monuments (not national preserves) to provide subsistence hunting program recommendations. ANILCA further provides that a subsistence hunting program recommendation for national parks and monuments must be implemented unless it “violates recognized principles of wildlife conservation, threatens the conservation of healthy population of wildlife . . . is contrary to the purposes for which the park or park monument is established, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs of local residents.” While Subsistence Resource Commissions provide valuable input on multiple topics that affect national parks, monuments, and national preserves, the Subsistence Resource Commission's statutory charge is specific to Title VIII subsistence hunting program recommendations in national parks and monuments. This rule does not restrict Title VIII subsistence and applies only to sport harvest on national preserves. Therefore 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) does not apply.

58. Comment: Some commenters stated that the factors in the rule that must be considered by superintendents prior to adopting a closure or restriction are ambiguous and give too much discretion to park superintendents. Other commenters suggested adding factors, including “natural,” “natural and healthy,” “healthy,” and “species of concern,” to those in the proposed rule. Other commenters suggested retaining the reference to emergencies.

NPS Response: The factors that must be considered by superintendents place appropriate guidelines around their authority to manage NPS units in Alaska. The discretionary authority granted to superintendents recognizes that they are subject matter experts regarding management of the park unit and allows them to take action and respond to changing circumstances in the unit.

Under the existing regulations, the superintendent must consider factors including public health and safety, resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, and other management considerations in determining whether to adopt closures or restrictions on an emergency basis. These factors appear elsewhere in 36 CFR part 13 (e.g., 36 CFR 13.460(b) and 13.485(c)). The NPS proposed to modify this section by requiring the superintendent to consider these factors for all closures and restrictions (not just emergencies), and adding the criteria of “naturally functioning ecosystems” based on NPS Management Policies 2006, which implement the NPS Organic Act.

In the final rule, the NPS has decided that adding a requirement that the superintendent consider protecting “naturally functioning ecosystems” is unnecessary because this consideration is encompassed by the existing requirement that the superintendent consider “resource protection.” The NPS considered adding the terms “natural,” “natural and healthy,” “healthy,” and “species of concern,” but determined such terms are not necessary because they are a part of “resource protection” or in some cases “conservation of endangered or threatened species.”

Changes From the Proposed Rule

After taking the public comments into consideration and after additional review, the NPS made the following substantive changes in the final rule:

§ 13.1 Added an exception to the definition of “bait” for legally taken fish not required to be salvaged if not moved from the kill site. This change is consistent with State law and would exclude this practice from the prohibition on using bait in the rule. The term “game” was changed to “wildlife” for consistency with NPS terminology. § 13.42(g) Delayed implementation of the prohibited methods of taking wildlife until January 1, 2016. § 13.42(g)(8) Added an allowance for using electronic calls to take all game animals (not limited to big game animals) except for moose. § 13.42(g)(10) Removed an exception that would have allowed the taking black bears over bait, which is now prohibited. § 13.42(g)(11) Removed an exception that would have allowed the use of dogs to take black bears under a State permit. § 13.42(g)(14) Added an exception to the prohibition on taking a fur animal by disturbing or destroying a den to allow taking muskrats at pushups or feeding houses. § 13.42(e) Modified an existing requirement that individuals transporting wildlife through park areas must identify themselves and the location where the wildlife was taken to any NPS personnel. This information must now only be given to NPS law enforcement personnel. This type of information is relevant for law enforcement purposes and accordingly, the identification requirement should be limited to law enforcement officers. § 13.50(a) Modified to reflect the applicability of § 13.50 to all NPS closures and restrictions in Alaska unless more specific procedures in part 13 apply. § 13.50(b) Changed the title from “criteria” to “factors” because the regulatory text refers to the considerations as “factors.” Removed “protecting the integrity of naturally functioning ecosystems” as factor that must be considered by the superintendent in determining whether to close an area or restrict an activity. § 13.50(c) Change the title from “duration” to “rulemaking requirements” to accurately reflect the content of the subsection. Removed the provision limiting all emergency closures and restrictions to 60 days. § 13.50(d) Added a provision requiring written explanation of the reasons for implementing, relaxing, or terminating a closure or restriction, except in emergencies. § 13.50(e) Prior to implementing nonemergency closures or restrictions on taking fish or wildlife, added a requirement to hold one or more public meetings near the affected NPS unit. Added a 60-day time limit for emergency closures or restrictions on taking fish or wildlife with extensions only upon consultation with the State and public comment, including a meeting near the affected NPS unit. § 13.50(f) Closures or restrictions will be “posted on the NPS website” rather than “effective upon publication on the NPS website.” This change reflects that the NPS may post closures or restrictions on the NPS website prior to them taking effect. Also added a requirement to compile a written list, updated annually, of closures and restrictions which is posted on the NPS website. § 13.50 Removed existing regulations on “Openings” and “Facility closures and restrictions” because they are redundant with the revisions to this section. § 13.50(g) Shortened for clarity and brevity. § 13.490 Added a requirement to consult with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board before temporary restrictions on taking fish or wildlife for subsistence uses under Title VIII of ANILCA. Updated the language regarding location of hearings to near the “affected NPS unit” for consistency with the changes in § 13.50. Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed Revisions to Wildlife Harvest Regulations in National Park System Alaska Region” which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking the link entitled “Amend Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves In Alaska” and then clicking the link entitled “Document List.”

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The rule's effect is limited to federal lands managed by the NPS in Alaska and it will not have a substantial direct effect on state and local government in Alaska. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Consultation with Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Department policy) and ANCSA Native Corporations

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. While the NPS has determined the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes or ANCSA Native Corporation lands, water areas, or resources, the NPS consulted with Alaska Native tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on the proposed rule, as discussed above.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

The NPS has analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 516 DM. We prepared an environmental assessment entitled “Wildlife Harvest On National Park System Preserves In Alaska” (EA) to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required, because we reached a Finding of No Signficant Impact (FONSI). The EA and FONSI are available online at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking on the link entitled “Amend Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves In Alaska” and then clicking on the link entitled “Document List.”

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Drafting Information

The primary authors of this regulation are Jay Calhoun, Regulations Program Specialist, National Park Service, Division of Jurisdiction, Regulations, and Special Park Uses; Philip Hooge, Denali National Park and Preserve; Barbara Cellarius, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve; and Guy Adema, Debora Cooper, Joel Hard, Grant Hilderbrand, Brooke Merrell, Bud Rice, and Andee Sears of the Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

PART 13—NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 3124; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4240.

2. In § 13.1, add in alphabetical order the terms “Bait”, “Big game”, “Cub bear”, “Fur animal”, “Furbearer”, and “Trapping” to read as follows:
§ 13.1 Definitions.

Bait means, for purposes of taking wildlife other than fish, any material used to attract wildlife by sense of smell or taste except:

(1) Parts of legally taken wildlife or fish that are not required to be salvaged if the parts are not moved from the kill site; or

(2) Wildlife or fish that died of natural causes, if not moved from the location where it was found.

Big game means black bear, brown bear, bison, caribou, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, mountain goat, moose, muskox, Dall's sheep, wolf, and wolverine.

Cub bear means a brown (grizzly) bear in its first or second year of life, or a black bear (including the cinnamon and blue phases) in its first year of life.

Fur animal means a classification of animals subject to taking with a hunting license, consisting of beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, or red squirrel that have not been domestically raised.

Furbearer means a beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, marten, mink, least weasel, short-tailed weasel, muskrat, land otter, red squirrel, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, Alaskan marmot, hoary marmot, woodchuck, wolf and wolverine.

Trapping means taking furbearers under a trapping license.

3. In § 13.40, revise the section heading and paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 13.40 Taking of fish.

(d) Use of native species as bait. Use of species native to Alaska as bait for fishing is allowed in accordance with non-conflicting State law and regulations.

(e) Closures and restrictions. The Superintendent may prohibit or restrict the non-subsistence taking of fish in accordance with the provisions of § 13.50.

4. Add § 13.42 to read as follows:
§ 13.42 Taking of wildlife in national preserves.

(a) Hunting and trapping are allowed in national preserves in accordance with applicable Federal and non-conflicting State law and regulation.

(b) Violating a provision of either Federal or non-conflicting State law or regulation is prohibited.

(c) Engaging in trapping activities as the employee of another person is prohibited.

(d) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use a firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking any species of bear, caribou, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, coyote, arctic and red fox, mountain goat, moose, Dall sheep, lynx, bison, musk ox, wolf and wolverine until after 3 a.m. on the day following the day in which the flying occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on regularly scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained public airports.

(e) Persons transporting wildlife through park areas must identify themselves and the location where the wildlife was taken when requested by NPS law enforcement personnel.

(f) State of Alaska management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park areas if they are related to predator reduction efforts. Predator reduction efforts are those with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans.

(1) The Regional Director will compile a list updated at least annually of State laws and regulations not adopted under this paragraph (f).

(2) Taking of wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or management actions identified in this paragraph (f) are prohibited. Notice of activities prohibited under this paragraph (f)(2) will be provided in accordance with § 13.50(f).

(g) This paragraph applies to the taking of wildlife in park areas administered as national preserves except for subsistence uses by local rural residents pursuant to applicable Federal law and regulation. As of January 1, 2016, the following are prohibited:

Prohibited acts Any exceptions? (1) Shooting from, on, or across a park road or highway None. (2) Using any poison or other substance that kills or temporarily incapacitates wildlife None. (3) Taking wildlife from an aircraft, off-road vehicle, motorboat, motor vehicle, or snowmachine If the motor has been completely shut off and progress from the motor's power has ceased. (4) Using an aircraft, snowmachine, off-road vehicle, motorboat, or other motor vehicle to harass wildlife, including chasing, driving, herding, molesting, or otherwise disturbing wildlife None. (5) Taking big game while the animal is swimming None. (6) Using a machine gun, a set gun, or a shotgun larger than 10 gauge None. (7) Using the aid of a pit, fire, artificial salt lick, explosive, expanding gas arrow, bomb, smoke, chemical, or a conventional steel trap with an inside jaw spread over nine inches Killer style traps with an inside jaw spread less than 13 inches may be used for trapping, except to take any species of bear or ungulate. (8) Using any electronic device to take, harass, chase, drive, herd, or molest wildlife, including but not limited to: artificial light; laser sights; electronically enhanced night vision scope; any device that has been airborne, controlled remotely, and used to spot or locate game with the use of a camera, video, or other sensing device; radio or satellite communication; cellular or satellite telephone; or motion detector (i) Rangefinders may be used.
  • (ii) Electronic calls may be used for game animals except moose.
  • (iii) Artificial light may be used for the purpose of taking furbearers under a trapping license during an open season from Nov. 1 through March 31 where authorized by the State.
  • (iv) Artificial light may be used by a tracking dog handler with one leashed dog to aid in tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal.
  • (v) Electronic devices approved in writing by the Regional Director.
  • (9) Using snares, nets, or traps to take any species of bear or ungulate None. (10) Using bait Using bait to trap furbearers. (11) Taking big game with the aid or use of a dog Leashed dog for tracking wounded big game. (12) Taking wolves and coyotes from May 1 through August 9 None. (13) Taking cub bears or female bears with cubs None. (14) Taking a fur animal or furbearer by disturbing or destroying a den Muskrat pushups or feeding houses.

    (h) The Superintendent may prohibit or restrict the non-subsistence taking of wildlife in accordance with the provisions of § 13.50.

    (i) A person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting or trapping by:

    (1) Placing oneself in a location in which human presence may alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take or the imminent feasibility of taking game by another person; or

    (2) Creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus in order to alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take.

    5. Revise § 13.50 to read as follows:
    § 13.50 Closure and restriction procedures.

    (a) Applicability and authority. The Superintendent will follow the provisions of this section to close an area or restrict an activity, or terminate or relax a closure or restriction, in NPS areas in Alaska.

    (b) Factors. In determining whether to close an area or restrict an activity, or whether to terminate or relax a closure or restriction, the Superintendent must ensure that the activity or area is managed in a manner compatible with the purposes for which the park area was established. The Superintendent's decision under this paragraph must therefore be guided by factors such as public health and safety, resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, and other management considerations.

    (c) Rulemaking requirements. This paragraph applies only to a closure or restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area; adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic, or cultural values; or require a long-term modification in the resource management objectives of the area. Except in emergency situations, the closure or restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, must be published as a rulemaking in the Federal Register.

    (d) Written determination. Except in emergency situations, prior to implementing or terminating a closure or restriction, the superintendent shall prepare a written determination justifying the action. That determination shall set forth the reasons the closure or restriction authorized by paragraph (a) of this section has been established. This determination will be posted on the NPS Web site at www.nps.gov.

    (e) Restrictions on taking fish or wildlife. (1) Except in emergencies, the NPS will consult with the State agency having responsibility over fishing, hunting, or trapping and provide an opportunity for public comment, including one or more public meetings near the affected NPS unit, prior to implementing a closure or restriction on taking fish or wildlife.

    (2) Emergency closures or restrictions may not exceed a period of 60 days and may not be extended without following the nonemergency procedures of this section.

    (f) Notice. A list of closures and restrictions will be compiled in writing and updated annually. The list will be posted on the NPS Web site at www.nps.gov and made available at park headquarters. Additional means of notice reasonably likely to inform residents in the affected vicinity will also be provided where available, such as:

    (1) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the State or in local newspapers;

    (2) Use of electronic media, such as the internet and email lists;

    (3) Radio broadcast; or

    (4) Posting of signs in the local vicinity.

    (g) Violating a closure or restriction is prohibited.

    § 13.400 [Amended]
    6. In § 13.400, remove paragraph (e) and redesignate paragraph (f) as new paragraph (e). 7. Revise § 13.470 to read as follows:
    § 13.470 Subsistence fishing.

    Fish may be taken by local rural residents for subsistence uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with applicable Federal law and regulation, including the provisions of §§ 2.3 and 13.40 of this chapter. Local rural residents in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed may fish with a net, seine, trap, or spear; or use native species as bait, where permitted by applicable Federal law and regulation.

    8. Revise § 13.480 to read as follows:
    § 13.480 Subsistence hunting and trapping.

    Local rural residents may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with this chapter and 50 CFR part 100.

    9. In § 13.490, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 13.490 Closures and restrictions to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife.

    (a) The Superintendent may temporarily restrict a subsistence activity or close all or part of a park area to subsistence uses of a fish or wildlife population after consultation with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board in accordance with the provisions of this section. The Superintendent may make a temporary closure or restriction notwithstanding any other provision of this part, and only if the following conditions are met:

    (1) The restriction or closure must be necessary for reasons of public safety, administration, or to ensure the continued viability of the fish or wildlife population;

    (2) Except in emergencies, the Superintendent must provide public notice and hold a public hearing near the affected NPS unit;

    (3) The restriction or closure may last only so long as reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of the closure.

    Dated: September 9, 2015. Michael Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26813 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337; FRL-9936-05-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment—Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of the State of Florida's March 10, 2015, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This submittal fulfills Florida's commitment to EPA to provide a regional haze SIP revision with a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions limit for Unit 1 at the Lakeland Electric—C.D. McIntosh Power Plant (McIntosh) reflecting best operating practices for good combustion. States are required to address the BART provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's regional haze regulations as part of a program to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the “regional haze program”) and to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. In this action, EPA is approving the BART NOx emissions limit for Unit 1 at McIntosh into the Florida SIP.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On December 10, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the BART and reasonable progress determinations for a number of EGUs in Florida as part of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 77 FR 73369. In that action, EPA proposed approval of Florida's BART determination for emissions Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh found subject to BART. On August 29, 2013, EPA issued a final, full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 78 FR 53250. In that final action, EPA approved the BART determination for the McIntosh facility, including the determination that the existing level of control for NOx at Unit 1, best operating practices for good combustion, is the NOx BART control for Unit 1. See 78 FR 53263. As described in the August 29, 2013, final action, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated July 30, 2013, in which the State committed to provide EPA with a regional haze SIP revision no later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the State's five-year regional haze periodic progress report SIP, that would include a NOx BART emissions limit for Unit 1 reflecting best operating practices for good combustion. FDEP also committed to modify the title V permit for McIntosh to include this new limit.

    To fulfill its commitment in accordance with the July 30, 2013 letter, the State of Florida submitted a SIP revision dated March 10, 2015, revising the State's regional haze SIP to include a NOx BART emissions limit for McIntosh Unit 1 and a construction permit (FDEP Permit No. 1050004-034-AC) dated April 30, 2014, for Unit 1 containing this limit. The permit contains supporting conditions (e.g., monitoring requirements) and a condition specifying a schedule for McIntosh to apply for a revision to its title V permit to reflect the new permit conditions.

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on August 20, 2015, EPA proposed to approve Florida's March 10, 2015, regional haze SIP revision fulfilling the State's July 20, 2013, commitment to provide EPA with a SIP revision containing a NOx BART emissions limit for McIntosh Unit 1 reflecting best operating practices for good combustion and conditions to modify the title V permit to incorporate this limit. See 80 FR 50591. The details of Florida's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPR. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 21, 2015. No adverse comments were received.

    II. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP revision and revising the regional haze SIP to include the NOx BART emissions limit for Unit 1 and the April 30, 2014, construction permit containing this limit. EPA is approving these changes to the Florida SIP because the submission meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in the CAA and in EPA's regional haze regulations and the applicable requirements of section 110 of the CAA.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 8, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart K—Florida 2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding an entry for “Regional Haze Plan Amendment 3” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.520 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register
  • notice
  • Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Regional Haze Plan Amendment 3 4/30/2014 10/23/2015
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • [Insert Federal Register citation] Establishes NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 at the Lakeland Electric—C.D. McIntosh Power Plant and includes FDEP Permit No. 1050004-034-AC.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26935 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0562: FRL-9935-48-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Open Burning Rules and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Enforcement Procedures AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving into Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) a submittal from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) dated July 7, 2014, containing revisions to the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency's (LRAPA) open burning rules adopted on March 14, 2008. The revised LRAPA open burning rules make clarifications and provide for additional controls of open burning activities in Lane County, would reduce particulate emissions in Lane County, and would strengthen Oregon's SIP. The EPA is also approving a submittal from the ODEQ dated June 30, 2014, to update Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) that relate to procedures in contested cases (appeals), enforcement procedures, and civil penalties. The EPA is approving most of the submitted provisions because the revisions clarify and strengthen the SIP and are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is not approving certain provisions of the submitted rules that do not relate to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA. Finally, the EPA is correcting the SIP pursuant to the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove certain provisions previously approved by the EPA that do not relate to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 22, 2015, without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by November 23, 2015. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0562, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].

    Mail: Mr. Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Mr. Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0562. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith A. Rose at (206) 553-1949, [email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. EPA Evaluation of the Submittals III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Introduction

    Title I of the CAA specifies the general requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. The EPA received a submittal from the ODEQ on July 7, 2014 requesting that the EPA approve into the Oregon SIP the revisions to the LRAPA open burning rules (title 47) adopted on March 14, 2008. In general, the revised LRAPA open burning rules make clarifications and provide for additional controls of open burning activities in Lane County. The EPA also received a submittal from the ODEQ on June 30, 2014 that updates Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 11, Rules of General Applicability and Organization, relating to contested cases (appeals of ODEQ actions) and OAR Chapter 340, Division 12, Enforcement Procedures and Civil Penalties. These divisions apply across all programs implemented by the ODEQ, including the air quality regulations that the EPA has approved into the SIP.

    The July 7, 2014 and June 30, 2014 SIP submittals also contain amendments to OAR 340-200-0040. This rule describes the State's procedures for adopting its SIP and references all of the state air regulations that have been adopted by the ODEQ for approval into the SIP (as a matter of state law), whether or not they have yet been submitted to or approved by the EPA.

    II. EPA Evaluation of the Submittals A. LRAPA Title 47, Open Burning (July 7, 2014 Submittal)

    LRAPA made numerous revisions throughout title 47, Open Burning. The key substantive changes are discussed below. A more detailed evaluation of the revisions to LRAPA's open burning rules is in the docket for this action. As discussed below, the EPA proposes to find that, overall, the revised rules will provide for additional controls for open burning activities in Lane County, reduce particulate emissions in Lane County, and strengthen Oregon's SIP.

    1. Exemptions

    LRAPA made several revisions to the types of open burning exempt from regulation and added one new exemption category. Although residential barbequing remains exempt, LRAPA has clarified that certain prohibited materials, such as garbage or plastic, may not be burned as fuel. The exemption for residential fires for recreational purposes has been narrowed by prohibiting the use of yard waste as fuel and prohibiting such fires altogether on yellow and red home wood heating advisory days called by LRAPA in the winter months within the Eugene/Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (ESUGB) and within the city limits of Oakridge. Religious ceremonial fires have been added as a new category of fires exempt from title 47. See LRAPA 47-005-2.C and 47-010 (definition of “religious ceremonial fires”). LRAPA expects religious ceremonial fires to occur infrequently and the definition requires that such fires be controlled, be “integral to a religious ceremony or ritual,” and that prohibited materials not be burned. Given the narrow scope of this exemption, that the exemptions from title 47 have otherwise been narrowed, and that the other revisions to title 47 generally strengthen the prohibitions on open burning, the EPA finds that the new exemption for religious ceremonial fires will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA therefore approves the revisions to LRAPA 47-005, Exemptions from these Rules.

    2. Definitions

    The following definitions in LRAPA 47-010 have been revised: Agricultural open burning, commercial wastes, construction wastes, construction open burning, demolition wastes, demolition open burning, Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, industrial open burning, and industrial waste. In general, the revisions to these definitions clarify the types of burn and waste categories. For example, through revisions to the definitions of construction waste, demolition waste, and commercial waste, it is now clear that wastes transported offsite are considered commercial waste even if the waste might otherwise meet the definition of construction or demolition waste. Because requirements for the open burning of commercial waste are generally more restrictive, these clarifications make the rules more stringent. These changes to definitions also make clear that materials included in the list of prohibited materials in LRAPA 47-015-1.E cannot be burned even if the material otherwise meets the specified definition. Again, these revisions make the rules more stringent.

    Definitions have been added to LRAPA 47-010 for agricultural operation, agricultural waste, bonfire, forest slash open burning, nuisance, recreational fire, religious ceremonial fire, and salvage. The new definition of “religious ceremonial fire” is discussed above in Section II.A.1 and the new definition of “forest slash opening burning” is discussed in Section II.A.3 below. In general, the other new definitions clarify the meaning of terms previously used in the rules and thus enhance the enforceability of the rules.

    Because the revised and new definitions in LRAPA 47-010 either increase the stringency of the rules or provide clarification to enhance enforceability, the EPA approves revisions to LRAPA 47-010 except for the definition of “nuisance,” which is discussed in more detail in Section II.A.5 below.

    Note that the introductory language in LRAPA 47-010 references title 12 of the LRAPA regulations for additional definitions. Proposed revisions to title 12 were included in a SIP submission that the EPA received on August 28, 2014. The present action does not address those revisions. The EPA will be acting on that submission in a future action.

    3. Open Burning Requirements

    LRAPA 47-015 contains most of the requirements for open burning, with general requirements to be met for all open burning and specific requirements for residential open burning, construction and demolition open burning, commercial open burning, industrial open burning, and a new category, forest slash open burning.

    Requirements for residential open burning have been made more stringent in a number of respects. The ending times for open burns are now set by a LRAPA burning advisory, rather than automatically extending until sunset. All open burning remains prohibited within the city of Eugene, and the prohibition on open burning within the city of Springfield has been expanded so that the burning of woody yard trimmings on lots of a half acre or more is now only allowed between March 1 through June 15 and October 1 through October 31, rather than from October 1 to June 15. The period of allowed residential open burning outside of the Eugene and Springfield city limits but within the ESUGB has similarly been narrowed. The Hazeldell and Siuslaw fire districts have been added to the list of fire districts that must comply with the open burning requirements for fire districts, which include the prohibition on burning construction/demolition debris unless authorized by a letter permit. Therefore, the conditions for open burning in the two newly added fire districts are now more stringent. Finally, a new section restricts residential open burning of woody yard trimmings, leaves and grass in Lane County outside of the affected areas identified in LRAPA 47-015-2.B-F to approved burn days from October 1 through June 15, instead of year around. There have been no substantive changes to the requirements for construction and demolition open burning, commercial open burning, or industrial open burning.

    A new section has been added to specifically address forest slash open burning. LRAPA 47-015-6.A confirms that forest slash open burning in areas covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan is regulated by the Oregon Department of Forestry under ORS 477.515 and not under LRAPA title 47. Such burning is already specifically exempt from LRAPA title 47 under the current SIP. See LRAPA 47-005-1.D.

    LRAPA 47-015-6.B addresses forest slash open burning in Lane County outside of areas covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Forest slash open burning in such areas is now expressly prohibited within the ESUGB. Forest slash open burning is also prohibited unless authorized by a letter permit under LRAPA 47-020, in the fire districts identified in LRAPA 47-015-2.F and other properties not covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Maps provided by LRAPA show that there is very limited forest land in Lane County that is not covered by the Smoke Management Plan, and would therefore be covered by the LRAPA forest slash open burning rules.

    Any slash burning in Lane County must now be coordinated with the South Cascade and Western Lane districts, and be consistent with slash burning advisories issued by Oregon Department of Forestry. In addition, under LRAPA 47-020-1, letter permits for such forest slash open burning can only be issued on a singly occurring or infrequent basis. According to LRAPA, forest slash open burning was not previously expressly regulated under title 47 prior to 1995. Seen in that light, the regulation of forest slash open burning on land not covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan would be an increase in the stringency of the Oregon SIP. The EPA considers the language in LRAPA 47-001 (“all open burning is prohibited in Lane County except as expressly allowed by these rules or if exempted from these rules by Oregon Statute”), which is currently approved in the SIP, however, as potentially prohibiting forest open slash burning on land that is not covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. In that respect, authorizing forest slash open burning through a letter permit under certain conditions could be considered less stringent than the current SIP. In any event, given the many other provisions of this SIP revision that make the SIP more stringent, that only one instance of such open slash burning has been issued a letter permit by LRAPA since 1995, the factors considered by LRAPA and findings LRAPA must make in issuing a letter permit for forest slash open burning in LRAPA 47-020-5 and -6, the EPA concludes that allowing this narrow category of open burning will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Accordingly, with the exception of LRAPA 47-015-6(B)(5), discussed in Section II.A.5 below, the EPA approves the revisions to LRAPA 47-015, Open Burning Requirements, because the revisions increase the overall stringency of the restrictions on open burning.

    4. Letter Permits

    LRAPA 47-020 authorizes certain types of open burning under letter permits issued by LRAPA. As discussed in Section II.A.3 above, this section has been amended to add forest slash burning for a single occurrence or on an infrequent basis to the list of the categories of open burning that may be allowed by a letter permit issued by LRAPA. It has also been amended to authorize issuance of letter permits for a bonfire held for a single event. The EPA finds that the potential increase in emissions that would result from these infrequent activities would be de minimis in light of the other restrictions on open burning imposed by the other revisions to title 47 in this SIP submittal.

    LRAPA 47-020-5 contains a list of factors to be considered by LRAPA in determining whether to issue a letter permit. This provision has been amended to allow LRAPA to consider as an alternative disposal method whether waste materials can be salvaged.

    Because the availability of alternative disposal options mitigates against authorizing open burning under LRAPA's rules, see LRAPA 47-001, expanding the list of what can be considered as an alternative disposal method makes the rules more stringent.

    With the exception of certain provisions discussed below in Section II.A.5 that do not relate to the requirements of section 110 of the CAA, the EPA approves the revisions to LRAPA 47-020 because the revisions do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    5. Summary Table

    LRAPA has removed the table is section 47-030, Summary of Seasons, Areas, and Permit Requirements for Open Burning. This table was a summary of the text explaining what type of burning was allowed in each area of Lane County. Removing this table has no impact on the stringency of the rule.

    6. Rules Not Approved or Being Removed From the SIP

    Title 47 contains several provisions, both previously approved by the EPA into the Oregon SIP, and newly enacted or revised provisions, that relate to nuisance, fire safety, or environmental issues that do not relate to air quality. The EPA's authority to approve SIPs extends to provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and carrying out other specific requirements of section 110 of the CAA. Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes the EPA, upon a determination that the EPA's action approving, disapproving or promulgating any SIP or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in error, to revise such action as appropriate.

    In this action, the EPA is not approving into the SIP and is removing from the SIP the following provisions of title 47 that do not relate to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or the other requirements of section 110 the CAA: The definition of “nuisance” in LRAPA 47-010; LRAPA 47-015-1.D (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-015-1.H; LRAPA 47-015-6.B(5); LRAPA 47-020-3 (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-020-9.I; LRAPA 47-020-10 (first sentence currently in the SIP).

    B. ODEQ Chapter 340, Divisions 11 and 12 (June 30, 2014 Submittal) 1. Division 11, Rules of General Applicability and Organization

    Oregon's June 30, 2014 submittal revises OAR Chapter 340, Division 11, to align with the Oregon Attorney General Model Rules, which address procedures for filing and serving documents in contested cases (appeals of ODEQ actions). These rule revisions were adopted by Oregon on December 11, 2013 and became effective on January 6, 2014. The rules were revised to improve the clarity and completeness of contested case appeals coming before the Environmental Quality Commission.

    Division 11 provides authority needed for implementing the SIP and is consistent with the CAA requirements for the issuance of permits and enforcement authority. The EPA is therefore approving the revisions to Division 11 submitted by the ODEQ, subject to the qualifications discussed below in Section III.

    2. Division 12, Enforcement Procedures and Civil Penalties

    Division 12 contains enforcement procedures and civil penalty provisions that apply across all programs implemented by the ODEQ, including the air quality regulations that the EPA has approved into the SIP. Division 12 provides the authority and procedures under which the ODEQ notifies regulated entities of violations, determines the appropriate penalties for violations, and assesses penalties for such violations. The revisions to Division 12 made by the ODEQ implement legislative increases in statutory maximum penalties, align violation classifications and magnitudes with ODEQ program priorities, provide greater mitigating credit for correcting violations, and make minor housekeeping changes.

    The EPA has reviewed the revisions to OAR Chapter 340, Division 12 and finds that these rules continue to provide the ODEQ with adequate authority for enforcing the SIP as required by section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 50.230(b). Importantly, OAR 340-012-0160(1) gives the ODEQ the discretion to increase a base penalty to that derived using the next highest penalty matrix value and OAR 340-012-0160(4) gives the ODEQ the discretion to deviate from the penalty matrices and assess penalties of $25,000 per day, per violation based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. The EPA therefore approves into the SIP the revisions to Division 12 submitted by the ODEQ, subject to the qualifications discussed below in Section III.

    III. Final Action

    The EPA is taking the following action on the revisions to LRAPA title 47, Open Burning, adopted on May 14, 2008, and submitted to the EPA by the ODEQ on July 7, 2014. We approve the revisions to the following sections except as identified below: 47-001, General Policy; 47-005, Exemptions from These Rules; 47-010, Definitions; 47-015, Open Burning Requirements; and 47-020, Letter Permits. As discussed in Section II.A.5 above, because the EPA's authority to approve SIPs extends to provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and carrying out other specific requirements of section 110 of the CAA, we are not approving into the SIP and are removing from the SIP under the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6) the following provisions: The definition of “nuisance” in LRAPA 47-010; LRAPA 47-015-1.D (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-015-1.H; LRAPA 47-015-6.B(5); LRAPA 47-020-3 (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-020-9.I; LRAPA 47-020-10 (first sentence currently in the SIP).

    The EPA also approves revisions to OAR Chapter 340, Division 11, adopted on December 11, 2013 and submitted by the ODEQ on June 30, 2014. The EPA is approving this division, however, only to the extent it relates to implementation of requirements contained in the Oregon SIP. The EPA is not incorporating these rules by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, however, because the EPA relies on its independent administrative and enforcement procedures under the CAA.

    The EPA also approves revisions to OAR Chapter 340, Division 12, adopted on December 11, 2013 and submitted by the ODEQ on June 30, 2014, except for the following provisions that do not relate to air emissions and were not submitted by the ODEQ for approval: OAR 340-012-0027,1 -0055, -0060, -0065, -0066, -0067, -0068, -0071, -0072, -0073, -0074, -0079, -0081, -0082, -0083, -0097. In addition, the EPA is approving the remaining sections in Chapter 340, Division 12, only to the extent they relate to enforcement of requirements contained in the Oregon SIP. Again, the EPA is not incorporating these rules by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, however, because the EPA relies on its independent enforcement procedures and penalty provisions in bringing enforcement actions and assessing penalties under the CAA.

    1 No such citation appears in Division 12, but these provisions have not been submitted by the ODEQ in any event.

    The EPA is not approving the revisions to OAR 340-200-0040 in these SIP submittals because these provisions address state SIP adoption procedures and because the Federally-approved SIP consists only of regulations and other requirements that have been submitted by the ODEQ and approved by the EPA.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

    V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 25, 2015. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart MM—Oregon 2. Section 52.1970 is amended: a. In paragraph (c) Table 4—EPA Approved Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) Rules for Oregon by: i. Revising entries 47-001, 47-005, 47-010, 47-015, and 47-020. ii. Removing the entry 47-030. b. In paragraph (e) table titled “Oregon Administrative Rules Approved, But Not Incorporated By Reference” by: i. Revising entry 011-0005. ii. Adding entries 011-0010, 011-0024, 011-0029, 011-0046, 011-0053, 011-0061, 011-0310, 011-0330, 011-0340, 011-0360, 011-0370, 011-0380, 011-0390, and 011-0500 in numerical order. iii. Revising entries 011-0510 and 011-0515. iv. Adding entries 011-0520, 011-0525, 011-0530, 011-0535, 011-0540, 011-0545, 011-0550, 011-0555, 011-0565, and 011-0570 in numerical order. v. Revising entries 011-0573 and 011-0575. vi. Adding entries 011-0580 and 011-0585 in numerical order. vii. Revising entries 012-0026, 012-0028, 012-0030, 012-0038, 012-0041, 012-0045, 012-0053, 012-0054, 012-0130, 012-0135, 012-0140, 012-0145, 012-0150, 012-0155, 012-0160, 012-0162, 012-0165, and 012-0170.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 52.1970 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Table 4—EPA Approved Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) Rules for Oregon LRAPA citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Title 47—Rules for Open Outdoor Burning 47-001 General Policy 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 47-005 Exemptions from these Rules 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 47-010 Definitions 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except the definition of “nuisance”. 47-015 Open Burning Requirements 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except 1.D, 1.H, and 6.B(5). 47-020 Letter Permits 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except 3, 9.I, and 10. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) EPA Approved Nonregulatory provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures.

    Oregon Administrative Rules, Approved But Not Incorporated by Reference State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations Division 11—Rules of General Applicability and Organization 011-0005 Definitions 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0010 Notice of Rulemaking 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0024 Rulemaking Process 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0029 Policy on Disclosure of the Relationship Between Proposed Rules and Federal Requirements 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0046 Petition to Promulgate, Amend, or Repeal Rule: Content of Petition, Filing or Petition 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0053 Periodic Rule Review 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0061 Declaratory Ruling: Institution of Proceedings, Consideration of Petition and Disposition of Petition 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0310 Purpose 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0330 Requests for Review or to Obtain Copies of Public Records 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0340 Costs for Record Review and Copying 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0360 Collecting Fees 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0370 Certification of Copies of Records 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0380 Fee Waivers and Reductions 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0390 Exempt Records 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0500 Contested Case Proceedings Generally 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0510 Agency Representation by Environmental Law Specialist 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0515 Authorized Representative of a Participant other than a Natural Person in a Contested Case Hearing 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0520 Liability for the Acts of a Person's Employees 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0525 Service and Filing of Documents 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0530 Requests for Hearing 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0535 Final Orders by Default 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0540 Consolidation or Bifurcation of Contested Case Hearings 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0545 Burden and Standard of Proof in Contested Case Hearings; DEQ Interpretation of Rules and Statutory Terms 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0550 Discovery 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0555 Subpoenas 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0565 Immediate Review 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0570 Permissible Scope of Hearing 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0573 Proposed Orders in Contested Cases 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0575 Review of Proposed Orders in Contested Cases 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0580 Petitions for Reconsideration or Rehearing 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 011-0585 Petitions for a Stay of the Effect of a Final Order 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] Division 12—Enforcement Procedure and Civil Penalties 012-0026 Policy 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0028 Scope of Applicability 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0030 Definitions 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0038 Warning Letters, Pre-Enforcement Notices and Notices of Permit Violation 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0041 Formal Enforcement Actions 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0045 Civil Penalty Determination Procedure 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0053 Classification of Violations that Apply to all Programs 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0054 Air Quality Classification of Violations 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0130 Determination of Violation Magnitude 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0135 Selected Magnitude Categories 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0140 Determination of Base Penalty 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0145 Determination of Aggravating or Mitigating Factors 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0150 Determination of Economic Benefit 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0155 Additional or Alternate Civil Penalties 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0160 DEQ Discretion Regarding Penalty Assessment 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0162 Inability to Pay the Penalty 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0165 Stipulated Penalties 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] 012-0170 Compromise or Settlement of Civil Penalty by DEQ 1/6/2014 10/23/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2015-26159 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service 42 CFR Part 137 Change of Address for the Interior Board of Indian Appeals AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department) is revising its regulations governing administrative appeals to reflect a change of address for the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). The IBIA moved to a new address at 801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203 effective February 11, 2002.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl Mitchell, Acting Director, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone: (301) 443-1116.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Through a two-person panel of administrative judges, the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) has the authority to consider appeals from decisions of agency officials and administrative law judges in cases under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Located within the Department of Interior's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), IBIA is separate and independent from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

    Effective February 11, 2002, the IBIA was relocated to 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia. To avoid confusion with appeals, HHS is updating its administrative appeals regulations to reflect the IBIA's new street address.

    II. Procedural Requirements A. Determination To Issue Final Rule Effective in Less Than 30 Days

    The Department has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply to this rulemaking because the changes being made relate solely to matters of agency organization, procedure, and practice. It, therefore, satisfies the exemption from notice and comment rulemaking in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

    Moreover, the Department has determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The error in the IBIA's location could cause misdirection of appeals. Thus, if the changes in this rule were to become effective 30 days after publication, it could cause further delays in processing appeals. Because an earlier effective date benefits the public, there is good cause for making this rule effective in less than 30 days, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    B. Review Under Procedural Statutes and Executive Orders

    The Department has reviewed this rule under the following statutes and executive orders governing rulemaking procedures: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.; the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.; the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; Executive Order 12630 (Takings); Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); Executive Order 13132 (Federalism); Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation); and Executive Order 13211 (Energy Impacts). The Department has determined that this rule does not trigger any of the procedural requirements of those statutes and executive orders, since this rule merely changes the street address for the IBIA.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Robert G. McSwain, Deputy Director, Indian Health Service. Approved: October 9, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary, Health and Human Services.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department, through the Indian Health Service amends subpart P of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 137 to read as follows:

    PART 137 [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 137 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 458 et seq.

    § 137.418 [Amended]
    2. In § 137.418, revise “4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203” to read “801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203”.
    § 137.423 [Amended]
    3. In § 137.423, revise “4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203” to read “801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203”.
    § 137.425 [Amended]
    4. In § 137.425, in paragraph (b), revise “4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203” to read “801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203”.
    § 137.440 [Amended]
    5. In § 137.440, in paragraph (b), revise “4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203” to read “801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203”.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27025 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8405] Suspension of Community Eligibility Correction

    In rule document 2015-26449 beginning on page 63130 in the issue of Monday, October 19, 2015, make the following correction:

    § 64.6 [Corrected]

    On page 63131, in the table, in the first column, in the Region VII entry “Kansas: 23 Hanover, City of, Washington County” should read “Kansas: Hanover, City of, Washington County”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2015-26449 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 14-226; FCC 15-118] Broadcast Licensee-Conducted Contests AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) amends the portion of its rules known as the “Contest Rule” to permit broadcast licensees to comply with their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting those terms or by making them available in writing on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. In particular, the Commission amends the Contest Rule to allow licensees to satisfy their disclosure obligation by posting material contest terms on the station's Web site, the licensee's Web site, or, if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is readily accessible to the public. The Commission also adopts requirements that define the disclosure obligation in cases where a licensee has chosen to meet its obligation through an Internet Web site.

    DATES:

    This rule contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raelynn Remy, [email protected], or Raphael Sznajder, [email protected], Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (“Order”), MB Docket No. 14-226, FCC 15-118, which was adopted and released on September 17, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).1 The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    1 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).

    I. Introduction

    1. Our “Contest Rule,” Section 73.1216 of our rules, requires broadcast licensees to disclose on air the material terms of contests that they broadcast. In this Order, we update that rule to permit broadcast licensees to comply with their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting those terms or by making them available in writing on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. In particular, we amend the Contest Rule to allow licensees to satisfy their disclosure obligation by posting material contest terms on the station's Web site, the licensee's Web site, or, if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is readily accessible to the public. Commenters in this proceeding uniformly support updating the Contest Rule, which has remained unchanged since its adoption by the Commission almost forty years ago.

    2. We also adopt, with some modifications, requirements proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that define the disclosure obligation in cases where a licensee has chosen to meet its obligation through an Internet Web site. Specifically, we revise the Contest Rule to specify that in such cases a licensee: (i) Must broadcast the relevant Web site address periodically with information sufficient for a consumer easily to find material contest terms online; (ii) must establish a link or tab to material contest terms on the Web site's home page; (iii) must maintain contest terms online for a period of at least thirty days after the contest has ended; and (iv) must announce on air that the material terms of a contest have changed since the contest was first announced, where that is the case, and direct participants to the Web site to review the changes. As discussed below, the announcements of any change in contest terms must be made within 24 hours of the change and periodically thereafter. Finally, we require that licensees ensure that any material terms disclosed on a Web site conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air.

    3. The actions we take in this Order to update the Contest Rule advance the public interest by affording broadcasters more flexibility in the manner of their compliance with Section 73.1216 while giving consumers improved access to important contest information. Through this Order, we take another step to modernize our rules to reflect how Americans access and consume information in the 21st century. At the same time, we affirm the core principles of the Contest Rule. Regardless of the medium of disclosure, broadcasters must provide complete, accurate, and timely information about the contests they conduct, ensure that such information is not false, misleading, or deceptive, and conduct their contests substantially as announced or advertised.

    II. Background

    4. Radio and television broadcast stations often conduct contests as a means of entertainment, promoting station support, and deepening audience engagement.2 Almost forty years ago, in 1976, the Commission adopted the Contest Rule to address concerns about the way in which broadcast stations were conducting contests.3 Although under the existing rule, a licensee may use non-broadcast methods to disclose material contest terms, it cannot substitute such methods for the required broadcast disclosure and be deemed compliant with the rule.4

    2See NPRM, 79 FR 75773.

    3See 47 CFR 73.1216; Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules Relating to Licensee-Conducted Contests, Report and Order, 60 F.C.C.2d 1072 (1976). See also Public Notice Concerning Failure of Broadcast Licensees to Conduct Contests Fairly, 45 F.C.C.2d 1056 (1974) (identifying contest practices that raise questions about a broadcast licensee's responsibility to the public, such as: (1) Disseminating false or misleading information regarding the amount or nature of prizes; (2) failing to control the contest to assure a fair opportunity for contestants to win the announced prizes; (3) urging participation in a contest, or urging persons to stay tuned to the station in order to win, at times when it is not possible to win prizes; (4) failing to award prizes, or failing to award them within a reasonable time; (5) failing to set forth fully and accurately the rules and conditions for contests; (6) changing the rules or conditions of a contest without advising the public or doing so promptly; and (7) using arbitrary or inconsistently applied standards in judging entries).

    4 47 CFR 73.1216, Note 2 (“The material terms should be disclosed periodically by announcements broadcast on the station conducting the contest. . . . In addition to the required broadcast announcements, disclosure of the material terms may be made in a non-broadcast manner.”).

    5. In January 2012, Entercom Communications Corp. (“Entercom” or “Petitioner”) filed an unopposed Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to update the disclosure requirements of Section 73.1216.5 Petitioner principally sought an amendment to Section 73.1216 that would allow broadcasters to satisfy their obligation to disclose material contest terms either through broadcast announcements or by making such terms available in written form on an Internet Web site. In November 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on a number of possible revisions to the Contest Rule. Commenters responding to the NPRM, largely broadcasters, support updating the Contest Rule but advocate some modifications to the Commission's proposed revisions.

    5See Petition for Rulemaking filed by Entercom Communications Corp., CGB Docket No. RM-11684 (filed Jan. 20, 2012) (“Petition for Rulemaking”).

    III. Discussion A. Satisfying the Obligation To Disclose Material Contest Terms through an Internet Web site

    6. As advocated by all of the commenters, we amend the Contest Rule to allow broadcast licensees to meet their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting the material terms or by making those terms available in written form on a readily accessible public Internet Web site. We agree with parties who assert that, given the ubiquitous nature of the Internet and current consumer expectations about how to obtain information, broadcast disclosure of material contest terms no longer reflects the best means of conveying such information to the public in all cases. For example, although on-air disclosure may be preferable in certain circumstances, e.g., simple contests and cases in which stations lack Web sites, we believe that broadcasters should be given flexibility to meet their disclosure obligation either through broadcast announcements or the Internet, and we will defer to broadcasters' discretion in selecting between those means of disclosure. As explained below, we find that revising the Contest Rule to permit reliance on online disclosure will provide benefits to both consumers and broadcasters, and that such benefits outweigh any associated costs.

    7. Based on the record, we conclude that allowing broadcasters to meet their obligation to disclose material contest terms through the Internet in lieu of broadcasting the terms will benefit consumers by improving their access to important contest information, to the extent that our action results in greater use of online disclosure. Because the current rule requires that licensees disclose material contest terms via broadcast announcements periodically, audience members interested in a contest may not hear or see contest disclosures if they are not tuned into the broadcast at the time the announcement is aired. Moreover, even in cases where prospective contestants hear or see a contest disclosure, the length or complexity of contest terms or the speed at which licensees communicate those terms may render it difficult for many to comprehend or recall the information conveyed. For these reasons, we agree with parties who assert that broadcasters' online posting of material terms will allow consumers to obtain “on demand” access to those terms and to review them at their convenience, thereby increasing the likelihood that contest terms will be understood and remembered.

    8. We find that this revision to the Contest Rule is consistent with consumer expectations about how to obtain contest information. As many parties note, the public today accesses information in ways that are dramatically different from how they did when the Contest Rule was adopted. The Internet has become a fundamental part of consumers' daily lives and now represents the medium used most by the public to obtain information instantaneously. Given that Americans today are accustomed to using the Internet to obtain a broad range of information, we agree with parties who assert that consumers reasonably expect to obtain information about licensee-conducted contests through the Internet. Indeed, as some parties note, broadcasters already use the Internet to post contest-related information, and consumers often enter and participate in contests via the Internet. Amending the Contest Rule to permit reliance on online disclosure of material contest terms thus brings the rule into alignment with current consumer expectations.

    9. As noted, permitting reliance on online disclosure of contest terms also will benefit broadcasters by affording them greater flexibility in the manner of their compliance with Section 73.1216 and by freeing up air time for other programming. Because many broadcasters already have dedicated Web sites where they can post complete contest information that the public can access “on demand,” and because we are not requiring broadcasters to use online posting if they prefer to broadcast contest terms over the air, we agree with parties who assert that the benefits of this rule change outweigh any associated costs.

    B. Requirements Governing Online Disclosure of Material Contest Terms

    10. Although this rule revision is intended, in part, to give broadcasters more flexibility in how they satisfy their obligation to disclose material contest terms, we find that the public interest will be served by establishing specific requirements that define the disclosure obligation in cases where a broadcaster chooses to meet that obligation through an Internet Web site. In particular, we believe that these requirements, which are comparable to those that apply to on-air disclosures,6 will provide guidance to licensees and facilitate useful access to contest information by the public. We discuss each requirement, in turn, below.

    6See 47 CFR 73.1216, Notes 1 through 3.

    11. “Publicly Accessible” Web site. We require that any Internet Web site relied on by a broadcaster to disclose material contest terms be “publicly accessible.” We interpret the term “publicly accessible” to mean that the Internet Web site is designed to be accessible to the public 24/7, for free, and without any registration requirement.7 This may include either the station's Web site, the licensee's Web site, or, if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is readily accessible to the public. Commenters generally agree that consumers should have access to material contest terms disclosed on a Web site without any fee or registration, and we believe that adopting these requirements will facilitate widespread and unfettered access to contest terms by broadcast audiences. Some parties assert that broadcasters should not be required to make available material contest terms on a 24/7 basis because factors beyond their control, such as system outages, power failures, and hacked Web sites could prevent them from ensuring 24/7 access. Thus, they express concern that they could be exposed to liability for violation of the Contest Rule even where they have made a good faith effort to ensure public accessibility. Because we require that any Web site used to disclose material contest terms be designed to be accessible to the public on a 24/7 basis, we believe the rule we adopt accounts for factors beyond the control of the licensee.

    7See NPRM, 79 FR 75773, 75775.

    12. Broadcast Identification of Web site Address. We also amend the Contest Rule to require that a licensee broadcast the address of an Internet Web site on which it relies to disclose material contest terms with information sufficient for a consumer to find those terms easily. Although we proposed in the NPRM to require licensees that choose to satisfy their disclosure obligation through the Internet to broadcast the “complete, direct Web site address” where contest terms are posted,8 we decline to adopt this requirement. We agree with commenters that a literal interpretation of such a requirement could be unduly burdensome to broadcasters and confusing to the public. Some parties contend, for example, that a rule requiring identification of the “complete, direct” Web site address could be interpreted to require a mechanical recitation of a web address as it appears on an Internet browser (e.g., “http-colon-backslash, etc.”), and that such a rule is less helpful to consumers than one that allows broadcasters to identify the relevant address through simple instructions or natural language (e.g., “for contest rules go to kxyz.com and then click on the contest tab”). In addition, Joint Commenters assert that Web site addresses and their subdirectories may change while contests are ongoing, and thus requiring identification of a “complete, direct” address, including local host names and subdirectories, would be unnecessarily onerous to broadcasters and could be confusing to consumers. We require that broadcasters identify the Web site in language that enables a typical consumer easily to locate the Web site's home page online, such as in the example provided above (“for contest rules go to kxyz.com and then click on the contest tab”). As with all elements of contest-related announcements, the burden is on the broadcaster to inform the public, not on the public to discern the message.

    8Id.

    13. Consistent with broadcasters' existing obligation to broadcast contest rule disclosures “periodically,” we conclude further that licensees must broadcast the Web site address where contest terms are posted “periodically” during the period of the contest. Although we proposed in the NPRM to require licensees to broadcast the Web site address “each time the station mentions or advertises the contest,” 9 we decline to adopt this requirement, which parties uniformly oppose. For example, some commenters argue that such a requirement could create unnecessary aural clutter and disrupt the listener experience. Parties also assert that, given the number of contests that are conducted simultaneously and the multitude and variety of contest references, requiring licensees to identify the relevant Web site address each time a contest is mentioned will reduce the amount of air time that can be utilized for other programming. Some parties contend further that the burdens imposed by such a requirement could cause stations to reduce the number of contest mentions or not to adopt online disclosure. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the potential drawbacks of requiring broadcast identification of the Web site address where contest terms are posted each time a contest is mentioned outweigh any associated benefits.

    9Id.

    14. We decline at this time to adopt a more prescriptive requirement governing the frequency of broadcast identification of the Web site address where contest terms are posted as some parties have suggested.10 We conclude that requiring on-air identification of the Web site address a specified number of times daily, e.g., an average of three times per day, would not serve the public interest because such a rule could lead broadcasters to identify the Web site address the specified minimum number of times irrespective of how often a contest is mentioned. Similarly, we decline to require broadcast identification of the Web site address only when a station substantially highlights or discusses a contest, as proposed by Hubbard and NSBA, as this approach would make the Contest Rule more challenging to enforce by requiring the Commission to assess in a particular case whether a contest has been “substantially” highlighted or discussed.11 On balance, we find that the public interest would be better served by providing licensees with flexibility to determine the frequency with which they broadcast the Web site address where contest terms are made available to the public. As noted, the requirement we adopt is harmonious with licensees' existing obligation to broadcast contest disclosures “periodically” 12 and the discretion long afforded licensees in this area.13 If we find that licensees are failing to broadcast the Web site address with adequate frequency, we will revisit this issue in the future.

    10See, e.g., iHeartMedia Comments at 13; Joint Parties Comments at 7 (suggesting that the Commission could require licensees to broadcast the Web site address an average of at least three times per day, excluding the hours of 12 to 6 a.m.). See also Hubbard Comments at 4; NSBA Comments at 5 (suggesting that the Commission could require licensees to broadcast the Web site address when they substantially highlight or discuss a contest, i.e., not during passing references). We note that some of these suggestions were proffered as an alternative to our proposal in the NPRM to require licensees to broadcast the relevant Web site address each time a contest is mentioned, and that some of these parties advocate principally for the requirement adopted herein (i.e., periodic broadcast identification of the Web site address). Nevertheless, we set forth above our reasons for declining to adopt those alternatives.

    11 Given the potential number of spontaneous, unscripted contest promotions, e.g., by on-air radio personalities, we also believe that adopting this proposal could result in a high number of Contest Rule violations. See, e.g., Entercom Comments at 9; iHeartMedia Comments at 12; NSBA Comments at 5.

    12See 47 CFR 73.1216, Note 2 (directing, among other things, disclosure of material contest terms be made “periodically by announcements broadcast on the station conducting the contest, but need not be enumerated each time an announcement promoting the contest is broadcast”).

    13Id. (stating that “[i]n general, the time and manner of disclosure of the material terms of a contest are within the licensee's discretion,” and that “[d]isclosure of material terms in a reasonable number of announcements is sufficient”).

    15. Internet Link to Contest Terms. As proposed in the NPRM, we also amend the Contest Rule to require that licensees establish a link or tab on the home page of an Internet Web site used to disclose material contest terms, that takes consumers to contest information.14 That link or tab must be conspicuously located on the Web site home page and must be labeled in a way that makes clear its relation to contest information. We disagree with commenters' assertions that the Commission need not adopt any rules to facilitate access to contest information because broadcasters have a natural incentive to make such information readily accessible and consumers can utilize Internet search engines to locate contest information quickly. Even if many consumers are able to locate contest terms absent any guidance, we believe that requiring broadcasters to establish a conspicuous link or tab on the Web site home page that takes users to contest terms will facilitate ready access to those terms by the public. As noted, the record reflects that many broadcasters already make available a link or tab to contest information on their Web site home page, which suggests that compliance with such a requirement is not unduly burdensome. Although some parties assert that licensees are in the best position to determine where contest information should be posted on a Web site, the rule we adopt requiring a link or tab to contest terms on a Web site home page does not dictate the location where material terms must be disclosed. To the contrary, the rule preserves the ability of broadcasters to maintain contest terms on a dedicated Web page, so long as that Web page is accessible by a link or tab on the home page that meets the requirements above.

    14See NPRM, 79 FR 75775 (seeking comment on how the Commission can ensure that material contest terms are easy for consumers to locate on an Internet Web site, and on whether to require a link on the Web site's home page to contest terms).

    16. Duration of Online Disclosure Obligation. We also require licensees that choose to disclose material contest terms via an Internet Web site to maintain such terms on the Web site for at least thirty days after the contest has concluded (i.e., thirty days after a winner has been selected and the station has notified the winner personally or publicly announced the winner by broadcast announcement or over the Internet site where it disclosed the contest rules). We note that under the existing rule, a licensee's obligation to disclose material terms “arises at the time the audience is first told how to enter or participate and continues thereafter;” however, the rule is silent on when this obligation ends.15 In the NPRM, we sought comment on how long a licensee should be required to maintain contest information on an Internet Web site.16 Although no commenter proposed the thirty-day period we adopt herein, we believe this time period is reasonable because it strikes an appropriate balance between the public's interest in accessing material terms after a contest has ended and the interest of broadcasters in keeping their Web sites up-to-date.17 We disagree with parties who assert that the Commission should refrain from specifying the duration that material contest terms must remain available online, or should require broadcasters to maintain online disclosures only until a contest winner has been selected. We believe that requiring broadcasters to maintain contest terms online for a reasonable period of time after a contest winner has been selected is necessary to ensure that contest information is readily available not only to potential contest participants, but also to actual contestants or others who wish to consult or confirm the rules after the contest has ended.18 To address concerns that maintaining contest rules online after a contest has ended could create confusion about whether a contest is ongoing, licensees should timely label expired contest terms to make clear that a contest has ended, including the date that a winner was selected.19

    15See 47 CFR 73.1216, Note 2.

    16See NPRM, 79 FR 75775.

    17 We note that the Commission, in other contexts, has found thirty days to be a reasonable period of notification to the public. See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/asr/localnotice (visited July 15, 2015) (providing that the Commission will post for thirty days information submitted by applicants for antenna structures that could raise environmental concerns); 47 CFR 76.1601 (requiring that a cable operator provide at least thirty days' notice to subscribers prior to deleting or repositioning a broadcast signal).

    18 Absent such a requirement, for example, a contest winner might not be able to readily confirm that the prize he/she has been awarded after the content has ended is, in fact, the prize disclosed online. Similarly, a losing contestant that wished to consult the contest rules could not readily do so if licensees were permitted to remove the rules immediately upon the contest's conclusion.

    19See 47 CFR 73.1216, Note 1(b) (“Material terms include . . . [the] time and means of selection of winners”) (emphasis added).

    17. Changes to Material Contest Terms. The Contest Rule prohibits false, misleading or deceptive contest descriptions and requires broadcasters to conduct their contests substantially as announced.20 Accordingly, we do not expect broadcasters to regularly change the material terms of a contest after the contest has commenced. Nevertheless, we recognize that, on rare occasions, limited changes to a contest's terms may be necessary to address changes in circumstances beyond the anticipation or control of the broadcaster. We therefore adopt our proposal to require that, in cases where a licensee chooses to satisfy its disclosure obligation through the Internet, if the material terms of a contest are changed after the contest is first announced, the licensee must announce on air that the contest rules have been changed and direct participants to the Web site to review the changes.21 With the exception of NPR, commenters support this proposal. As suggested by some parties, we require licensees to make such announcements on air within 24 hours of the change in material terms on the Web site,22 and periodically thereafter, until the contest has concluded.23 We are not persuaded by NPR's speculative assertion that requiring broadcasters to announce changes to material contest terms over the air could lead to public confusion about whether contest terms posted on a Web site are accurate.24 We believe that stations can address this concern by labeling contest terms with information that indicates, for example, the date that the terms were last updated. We believe that requiring on-air announcements of changes in material contest terms is necessary to address the potential that some broadcasters will use their ability to disclose terms online as a means of changing contest rules in a way that is misleading or deceptive to the public. We emphasize that a broadcaster that effectuates a change in terms that unfairly or deceptively alters the operation of the contest or the nature or value of the prize or materially disadvantages existing contestants will be deemed to have rendered prior descriptions false, misleading, and deceptive and, thus, would violate the Contest Rule, regardless of whether such alterations are announced on air or posted to a Web site.25

    20See 47 CFR 73.1216.

    21See NPRM, 79 FR 75775 (also seeking comment on the appropriate frequency and duration of this requirement).

    22See Entercom Comments at 11; iHeartMedia Comments at 14 (advocating a requirement that licensees announce changes to material contest terms within 24 hours of the change). We expect licensees to broadcast forthwith announcements of the changes in material terms that they have posted on a Web site, and to not wait 24 hours before doing so.

    23 Although a few parties have suggested that licensees be required to announce on air that contest terms have changed three times daily, see Entercom Comments at 11; iHeartMedia Comments at 14; Joint Parties Comments at 9, we conclude that requiring such announcements on a periodic basis will give broadcasters more flexibility in how they satisfy their disclosure obligation, and is consistent with licensees' existing obligation to broadcast contest disclosures “periodically” and the discretion granted licensees under the Contest Rule. We note that this requirement also is harmonious with the rule we adopt above governing broadcast identification of Web site addresses.

    24See NPR Comments at 5 (rather than requiring licensees to disclose on air that material contest terms have been changed, the Commission should require them to state clearly on the Web site that contest terms have changed).

    25See 47 CFR 73.1216.

    18. Consistency of Contest Terms. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to require that any material contest terms disclosed on an Internet Web site conform in all substantive respects to contest terms broadcast over the air.26 Although no commenter specifically addressed this proposal, we conclude that amending the Contest Rule to include such a requirement serves the public interest by ensuring that contest information made available by broadcasters in written and oral form is consistent. We note that the Contest Rule currently requires licensees, among other things, to disclose material contest terms “fully and accurately” and to conduct contests “substantially as announced or advertised.” 27 The Contest Rule directs further that “[n]o contest description shall be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term.” 28 We believe that prohibiting broadcasters from disclosing material contest terms on an Internet Web site that differ in any substantive respect from contest information broadcast over the air is harmonious with broadcasters' existing obligations under the Contest Rule. In particular, we find that a licensee's failure to disseminate consistent information about a contest it conducts constitutes a violation of the requirements noted above to disclose material contest terms accurately, to conduct contests substantially as announced or advertised, and to provide contest descriptions that are not false, misleading, or deceptive. To the extent that there are any ambiguities in contest disclosures that generate inconsistency, we place broadcasters on notice that the Commission will construe such ambiguities against the licensee. We believe that this approach will benefit broadcast audiences by facilitating clarity and consistency in contest disclosures.

    26See NPRM, 79 FR 75775. As noted in the NPRM, for example, if a broadcast contest announcement identifies a particular prize by brand name or model, then the terms disclosed on the Web site must be the same. Id. para. 12, n.41.

    27See 47 CFR 73.1216.

    28Id.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”) 29 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (“FRFA”) conforms to the RFA.30

    29See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

    30See 5 U.S.C. 604.

    1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule Changes

    20. This proceeding stems from an unopposed Petition for Rulemaking filed by Entercom Communications Corp. requesting that the Commission update Section 73.1216 of its rules governing broadcast licensee-conducted contests (the “Contest Rule”) 31 in a manner that reflects how consumers access information in the 21st Century.32 In November 2014, the Commission issued a NPRM seeking comment on certain proposals intended to modernize the Contest Rule by providing broadcasters with more flexibility in how they satisfy their obligation to disclose material contest terms, without relaxing their duty to conduct contests with due regard for the public interest.

    31 47 CFR 73.1216.

    32See Petition for Rulemaking filed by Entercom Communications Corp., CGB Docket No. RM-11684 (filed Jan. 20, 2012).

    21. In the accompanying Order, the Commission amends the Contest Rule to permit broadcast licensees to comply with their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting such terms or by making them available in writing on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. In particular, the Order amends the rule to allow a broadcast licensee to satisfy its disclosure obligation by posting material contest terms on the station's Web site, the licensee's Web site, or, if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is readily accessible to the public.

    22. The Order also revises the Contest Rule to specify that, in cases where a licensee chooses to disclose material contest terms through an Internet Web site, the licensee: (i) Must broadcast the relevant Web site address periodically with information sufficient for a consumer to easily find material contest terms online; (ii) must establish a link or tab to material contest terms on the Web site's home page; (iii) must maintain contest terms online for a period of at least thirty days after the contest has ended; and (iv) that changes the material terms of a contest after the contest is first announced must announce on air that the contest rules have changed and direct participants to the Web site to review the changes. The Order requires that such announcements be made on air within 24 hours of the change in contest terms on the Web site, and periodically thereafter. Finally, licensees must ensure that any material terms disclosed on a Web site conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air.

    2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    23. No comments were filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.

    3. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    24. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.33 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 34 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.35 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.36 The rules adopted in the accompanying Order will directly affect small television and radio broadcast stations. Below, we provide a description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

    33 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

    34 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    35 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

    36 15 U.S.C. 632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive.

    25. Television Broadcasting. This economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” 37 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.38 The 2007 U.S. Census indicates that 808 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 709 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 99 had annual receipts of more than $25,000,000.39 Because the Census has no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we conclude that the majority of television broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard.

    37 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    38 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120.

    39 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series—Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 (515120), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    26. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387 stations.40 Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 2, 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 395.41 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.42 Based on these data, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities.

    40See Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. July 9, 2014) (Broadcast Station Totals) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-328096A1.pdf.

    41See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    42See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

    27. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast stations would apply to licensees of Class A television stations and low power television (LPTV) stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.43 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed Class A television stations to be 432.44 The Commission has also estimated the number of licensed LPTV stations to be 2,028.45 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

    43 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515120.

    44See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    45See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    28. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 46 must be included. Because we do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an entity meets the revenue threshold noted above, our estimate of the number of small entities affected is likely overstated. In addition, we note that one element of the definition of “small business” is that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, our estimate of small television stations potentially affected by the proposed rules includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.

    46 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).

    29. Radio Stations. This economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” 47 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.48 Census data for 2007 shows that 2,926 firms in this category operated in that year.49 Of this number, 2,877 firms had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 49 firms had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more.50 Because the Census has no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we conclude that the majority of television broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard.

    47 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations,” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. This category description continues, “Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”

    48 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515112.

    49 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series—Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 (515112), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    50Id.

    30. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,553 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,622, for a total number of 11,175.51 Of this total, 9,898 stations (or about 90 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on October 23, 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) AM radio stations to be 168 stations and the number of noncommercial educational FM radio stations to be 4,082, for a total of 4,250.52 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.53 Therefore, we estimate that the majority of radio broadcast stations are small entities.

    51See Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. July 9, 2014) (Broadcast Station Totals) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-328096A1.pdf. This document only indicates the total number of AM stations as 4,721. The breakdown between licensed AM commercial and noncommercial stations was obtained from Staff review of the Consolidated Database System (CDBS). See http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm.

    52See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    53See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

    31. Low Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to radio stations would apply to low power FM stations. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.54 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed low power FM stations to be 814.55 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

    54See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.

    55See News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2012” (rel. Jul. 19, 2012) (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304594A1315231A1.pdf).

    32. We note again, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 56 must be included. Because we do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an entity meets the applicable revenue threshold, our estimate of the number of small radio broadcast stations affected is likely overstated. In addition, as noted above, one element of the definition of “small business” is that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, our estimate of small radio stations potentially affected by the proposed rules includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.

    56 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).

    4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    33. In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities that the Commission adopts in the Order.

    34. Reporting Requirements. The Order does not adopt reporting requirements.

    35. Recordkeeping Requirements. The Order adopts certain recordkeeping requirements that apply to broadcast entities, including small broadcast entities, that choose to disclose material contest terms by posting such terms on an Internet Web site. In particular, the Order requires such entities:

    • to broadcast the relevant Web site address periodically with information sufficient for a consumer to easily find material contest terms online;

    • to establish a link or tab to material contest terms on the Web site's home page;

    • to maintain contest terms online for a period of at least thirty days after the contest has ended;

    • in cases where such entities change the material terms of a contest after the contest is first announced, to announce on air that the contest rules have changed and direct participants to the Web site to review the changes, and to make such announcements on air within 24 hours of the change on the Web site and periodically thereafter; and

    • to ensure that any material terms disclosed on a Web site conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air.

    36. Other Compliance Requirements. The Order does not adopt other compliance requirements.

    37. Based on the record, we cannot estimate with precision the impact of the rules adopted in the Order on small entities. However, the rule revisions will afford all licensees, including small broadcasters, greater flexibility in their manner of compliance with the Contest Rule. In addition, we note that some of the rule revisions were derived from the Petition for Rulemaking in this proceeding, which was unopposed and supported by all commenters, including small broadcasters. Thus, we find it reasonable to conclude that any costs or burdens on small entities resulting from the requirements will be outweighed by the benefits.

    5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.57

    57 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

    39. The accompanying Order amends Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules by allowing all licensees, including small broadcasters, to meet their obligation to disclose material contest terms either through broadcast announcements or by making such terms available in writing on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. This revision to the rule is intended to give broadcasters greater flexibility in the manner by which they satisfy their obligation to disclose material contest terms, while ensuring adequate notice of such terms to the public. Whereas under the current rule, licensees must expend time and resources developing broadcast messages that adequately disclose important contest information, under the revised rule, licensees will have the option to disclose such information through the Internet. Permitting disclosure through this additional method likely is less costly and administratively burdensome for licensees, including small entities. One commenter has estimated, for example, that as much as two hours that are presently devoted by licensees to the production of contest-related broadcast spots will be spared. Moreover, the air time that is likely to be freed up as a result of more abbreviated contest-related announcements could be used for non-contest-related programming. As noted above, the Petition for Rulemaking in this proceeding was uniformly supported by commenting parties, including small entities. Thus, we expect that the rule revisions adopted in the Order will benefit small broadcast entities.

    B. Report to Congress

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

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    41. This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    42. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303, this Report and Order IS ADOPTED, and shall become effective upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval and an effective date of the rules adopted therein.

    43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B.

    44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Advertising, Consumer protection, Fraud, Television broadcasters.

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    2. Revise § 73.1216 to read as follows:
    § 73.1216 Licensee-conducted contests.

    (a) A licensee that broadcasts or advertises information about a contest it conducts shall fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest, and shall conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised over the air or on the Internet. No contest description shall be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term.

    (b) The disclosure of material terms shall be made by the station conducting the contest by either:

    (1) Periodic disclosures broadcast on the station; or

    (2) Written disclosures on the station's Internet Web site, the licensee's Web site, or if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is publicly accessible.

    (c) In the case of disclosure under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a reasonable number of periodic broadcast disclosures is sufficient. In the case of disclosure under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the station shall:

    (1) Establish a conspicuous link or tab to material contest terms on the home page of the Internet Web site;

    (2) Announce over the air periodically the availability of material contest terms on the Web site and identify the Web site address where the terms are posted with information sufficient for a consumer to find such terms easily; and

    (3) Maintain material contest terms on the Web site for at least thirty days after the contest has concluded. Any changes to the material terms during the course of the contest must be fully disclosed on air within 24 hours of the change on the Web site and periodically thereafter or the fact that such changes have been made must be announced on air within 24 hours of the change, and periodically thereafter, and such announcements must direct participants to the written disclosures on the Web site. Material contest terms that are disclosed on an Internet Web site must be consistent in all substantive respects with those mentioned over the air.

    Note 1 to § 73.1216: For the purposes of this section:

    (a) A contest is a scheme in which a prize is offered or awarded, based upon chance, diligence, knowledge or skill, to members of the public.

    (b) Material terms include those factors which define the operation of the contest and which affect participation therein. Although the material terms may vary widely depending upon the exact nature of the contest, they will generally include: How to enter or participate; eligibility restrictions; entry deadline dates; whether prizes can be won; when prizes can be won; the extent, nature and value of prizes; basis for valuation of prizes; time and means of selection of winners; and/or tie-breaking procedures.

    Note 2 to § 73.1216: In general, the time and manner of disclosure of the material terms of a contest are within the licensee's discretion. However, the obligation to disclose the material terms arises at the time the audience is first told how to enter or participate and continues thereafter.

    Note 3 to § 73.1216: This section is not applicable to licensee-conducted contests not broadcast or advertised to the general public or to a substantial segment thereof, to contests in which the general public is not requested or permitted to participate, to the commercial advertisement of non-licensee-conducted contests, or to a contest conducted by a non-broadcast division of the licensee or by a non-broadcast company related to the licensee.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26093 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 48 CFR Parts 925, 952 and 970 RIN 1991-AB99 Acquisition Regulations: Export Control AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting as final, with changes, a rule amending the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) to add clauses regarding applicable export control requirements for DOE contracts. The rule recognizes contractor responsibilities to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations in the performance of DOE contracts and prescribes Export Clauses to address these responsibilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 23, 2015.

    Applicability Date: This final rule is applicable to solicitations issued on or after November 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lawrence Butler, (202) 287-1945 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Legal Authority B. Summary of Major Provisions 1. Part 925—Foreign Acquisition. 2. Part 952—Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses. 3. Part 970—DOE Management and Operating Contracts. II. Summary of Comments and Responses III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13609 L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Legal Authority

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to add new DEAR Subparts 925.71 and 970.2571 to clarify requirements concerning compliance with export control laws and regulations applicable in the performance of DOE contracts.

    Export control laws and regulations that may apply to a DOE contract include, but are not limited to: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as amended; the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977); Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq. as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961); Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 810); Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774); International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 130); Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110); and regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (31 CFR parts 500 through 598).

    DOE provided summaries of these export control laws in section II of its proposed rule. See 78 FR 35195 (June 12, 2013).

    B. Summary of Major Provisions

    DOE is amending the DEAR to add provisions similar to the 2013 amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) (DFARS 225, Foreign Acquisition, and DFARS 252, 78 FR 36108, June 17, 2013); DFARS 252, Foreign Acquisition, 78 FR 48331, August 8, 2013; and to the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 225 “Foreign Acquisition” (revised June 26, 2013).

    1. Part 925—Foreign Acquisition

    Part 925 is amended by adding new section 925.71 to set forth requirements for contractors concerning compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations.

    Points of contact and specific U.S. government agency requirements for export controls can be found as follows:

    Department of Commerce (DOC): http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

    Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security: http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/officenonproliferationinternationalsecurity.

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

    Department of State: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/about/key_personnel.html and http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/documents/ddtc_getting_started.pdf.

    Department of Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Foreign-Transaction-Licensing-and-Reporting.aspx.

    DOE contractors are responsible for complying with export control requirements applicable to their contracts as set forth in new DEAR Export Clauses. It is a contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this DEAR rulemaking.

    2. Part 952—Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

    Part 952 is amended by adding new clause 952.225-71 to set forth requirements for DOE contractors concerning compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations.

    Points of contact and specific U.S. government agency requirements for export controls can be found as follows:

    Department of Commerce (DOC): http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

    Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security: http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/officenonproliferationinternationalsecurity.

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

    Department of State: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/about/key_personnel.html and http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/documents/ddtc_getting_started.pdf.

    Department of Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Foreign-Transaction-Licensing-and-Reporting.aspx.

    DOE contractors are responsible for complying with export control requirements applicable to their contracts as set forth in new DEAR Export Clauses. It is a contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this DEAR rulemaking.

    3. Part 970—DOE Management and Operating Contracts

    Subpart 970.25 is amended by adding new section 970.2571 to set forth requirements for management and operating contractors concerning compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations. Subpart 970.52 is amended by adding new clause 970.5225-1 to set forth requirements for management and operating contractors concerning compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations.

    Points of contact and specific U.S. government agency requirements for U.S. export controls can be found as follows:

    Department of Commerce (DOC): http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm.

    Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security: http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/officenonproliferationinternationalsecurity.

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

    Department of State: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/about/key_personnel.html and http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/documents/ddtc_getting_started.pdf.

    Department of Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Foreign-Transaction-Licensing-and-Reporting.aspx.

    DOE management and operating contractors are responsible for complying with export control requirements applicable to their contracts as set forth in new DEAR Export Clauses. It is the contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this DEAR rulemaking.

    II. Summary of Comments and Responses

    DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35195). The NOPR reflected the approach previously taken by the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Defense Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) to address requirements for complying with export control laws and regulations when performing DoD contracts. DOE has received recommendations from the General Accounting Office and the DOE Inspector General to modify the DEAR for the same purpose. DOE received comments from 15 organizations in response to the NOPR. In addition, within days of publication of the NOPR, the DoD revised the DFARS to address issues similar to those reflected in comments received on the NOPR and provided guidance relating to the release of fundamental research information. This final rule reflects the approach taken by the DoD on June 17, 2013, to changes to sections 225.79 and 252.225-7048 of the DFARS (Foreign Acquisition, 78 FR 36108), and to changes to Part 225 of the DFARS PGI—225.79 (Foreign Acquisition, Export Control). This NOPR also reflects DoD guidance in 78 FR 48331, August 8, 2013, related to the release of research information that may be export controlled.

    The following paragraphs describe the changes included in this final rule as a result of those comments and provide DOE's response to the comments received.

    Summary of Changes to the NOPR

    (a) All notification and reporting requirements have been removed.

    (b) The requirement for contractors to comply with DOE directives “in effect on the date of the contract award” has been removed.

    (c) References to “transfers” have been removed.

    (d) References to specific DOE Orders have been removed.

    (e) The Export Restriction Notice has been removed from the Export Clauses.

    (f) The phrase “subject to export controls” has been removed from the Export Clauses.

    (g) All listings of U.S. export control laws and regulations are preceded by, “include, but are not limited to:”

    (h) All references to “export-controlled items” and “export control of items” have been removed. The rule addresses “compliance with export control laws and regulations” and does not attempt to define what is and is not export controlled.

    Discussion of comments and responses.

    1. Comment: Six respondents claimed that export control laws exist and already apply to U.S. persons, regardless of whether a contractor represents to DOE that it is complying with applicable export laws.

    Response: As stated in the NOPR, export compliance responsibilities exist independent of and are not established or limited by the proposed rule. It is customary practice for laws and regulations applicable to DOE contracts to be listed in the contracts. In addition, DOE is requiring the new Export Clauses to be added to all applicable contracts. Listing applicable export laws and regulations in the Export Clauses will help ensure that contractors are aware of their responsibilities, emphasize the importance to DOE of contractor compliance with such laws and regulations, and minimize the risk of non-compliance with U.S. laws and regulations that could have major programmatic and financial impacts on DOE and contractors. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    2. Comment: Six respondents claimed that the rule encroaches on the export authority of other U.S. export licensing authorities.

    Response: The rule does not affect the export authority of any U.S. Government agency. The purpose of the rule is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at export licensing agencies and not to ask DOE Contracting Officers for assistance in complying with export control requirements. The rule provides explicit instructions to DOE Contracting Officers, if asked by a DOE contractor to provide export assistance, to direct contractors to applicable export laws and regulations and to the agencies administering them. The final rule makes it clear that DOE does not have an export compliance officer overseeing DOE contractor export activities, and that contractors are responsible for compliance with export controls. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    3. Comment: Four respondents claimed the proposed rule has existing or potential inconsistencies with export control authorities.

    Response: As noted above, the purpose of the rule is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at export licensing agencies and not to ask for export control compliance assistance from DOE Contracting Officers. The final rule has been revised to remove reporting and marking requirements, as well as language cited by one respondent as potentially inconsistent with other authorities.

    4. Comment: One respondent expressed concern as to how differences of opinion on the applicability of export control requirements between agencies responsible for administering the laws and the DOE Contracting Officer would be resolved.

    Response: The rule makes clear that DOE Contracting Officers do not make any decisions regarding the applicability of export control laws or regulations. The appropriate licensing agency determines whether export control requirements apply. It is a contractor's responsibility to adhere to all relevant export control laws and regulations. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    5. Comment: One respondent claimed that DOE is potentially setting up a conflict for a contractor between complying with changes in export laws and regulations that are not yet changed in its contract clause.

    Response: The listing of export control laws and regulations in the Export Clauses in the final rule are preceded by “include, but are not limited to:”. Any changes in U.S. export laws or regulations would apply to a contractor because the Export Clauses require compliance with all applicable export control laws and regulations. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    6. Comment: Two respondents alleged that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the Export Control Reform Initiative.

    Response: The final rule is consistent with the Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). The purpose of this rule is to simplify the export process for DOE contractors, by directing them to the proper export licensing authorities. Reporting requirements have been removed from the final rule.

    7. Comment: Three respondents claimed that the proposed rule is redundant to DEAR 970.5204-2 Laws, Regulations and DOE Directives, because that clause adequately covers compliance with export laws and regulations.

    Response: The rule clarifies DOE contractor and Contracting Officer responsibilities regarding export controls not clearly stated in any other law or regulation. The Export Clauses clarify that DOE contractors are to contact appropriate export licensing agencies and not DOE Contracting Officers with questions regarding export control compliance. The Export Clauses direct DOE Contracting Officers to address contractor export control questions by directing them to relevant export control laws and regulations and licensing agencies. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    8. Comment: One respondent questioned the requirement for contractors to comply with DOE directives “in effect on the date of the contract award,” as individual DOE contracts specify applicable DOE directives for each DOE contract.

    Response: DOE acknowledges that contracts specify applicable DOE directives. This language has been removed from the final rule.

    9. Comment: Two respondents claimed that DOE already has adequate contractual enforcement tools.

    Response: The purpose of the rule is not to provide additional enforcement tools. This rule is needed to clarify DOE contractor and Contracting Officer export control responsibilities not clearly stated in any other law or regulation. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    10. Comment: Six respondents claimed that export control requirements are not needed in the DEAR and that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) limits agency acquisition regulations to those necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures.

    Response: The final rule provides necessary policies and procedures not included in the FAR. It clarifies that DOE contractors are to consult appropriate export licensing agencies and not DOE Contracting Officers with questions regarding export compliance. The final rule directs DOE Contracting Officers to handle export control questions posed by contractors by directing the contractors to the relevant export licensing agencies. This rule is needed to clarify DOE contractor and DOE Contracting Officer responsibilities that are not clearly stated in any other law or regulation. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    11. Comment: Six respondents claimed that the proposed rule exceeds the stated purpose of the rule, which is to amend the DEAR for consistency with a 2010 amendment to the DFARS. They said that the proposed rule is not consistent with the revised DFARS clauses.

    Response: The final rule reflects the approach taken in the June 17, 2013, changes to 225.79 and 252.225-7048 of the DFARS (Foreign Acquisition, 78 FR 36108) and to the June 17, 2013 changes to Part 225.79 of the DFARS PGI-225 (Foreign Acquisition). No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    12. Comment: Three respondents claimed that the proposed rule is ineffective as a way to respond to 2004 and 2007 DOE Inspector General (IG) and 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on DOE contractor non-compliance with export laws.

    Response: The rule responds to DOE IG and GAO recommendations in the cited reports for DOE to provide specific export control guidance to DOE contractors. In particular, the 2007 DOE IG report recommended that DOE “ensure that export control guidance is disseminated and implemented throughout the complex.” To implement that recommendation, the IG report stated that “NNSA management should expedite action, such as issuing a directive or modifying the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), to fully implement the open recommendation.” The 2011 GAO report repeated its prior recommendations for DOE to provide guidance to its contractors. The proposed rule is in direct response to the DOE IG recommendation to modify the DEAR, as well as the recommendations in the GAO report. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    13. Comment: Two respondents claimed that the proposed rule unfairly asks Contracting Officers to make export control decisions for which they are not trained. One respondent proposed rewording the requirement for Contracting Officers to insert the export control clause as follows: “The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 952.225-71, Compliance with export control laws, regulations and directives (Export Clause), in all solicitations and contracts.”

    Response: The purpose of the new rule is to set forth the responsibilities of DOE contractors and DOE Contracting Officers concerning contractor compliance with export-controlled activities. Contracting Officers are required to include the Export Clause at DEAR 952.225-71 or DEAR 970.5225-1 in solicitations and contracts that would involve export-controlled activities. While the rule has been revised to be applicable to “all solicitations and contracts,” export control laws would not be applicable to solicitations and contracts that do not involve export-controlled activities. As noted above, the revised language is similar to the policy approach taken DoD.

    14. Comment: Nine respondents claimed that certain reporting requirements included in the Export Clauses would unduly burden DOE contractors because the requirement of a timely, written notification of export controls and compliance for DOE contracts would be an overbroad approach to ensuring export control compliance. Also, the requirement to flow down the reporting requirement would impose administrative and audit burdens on contractors.

    Response: The final rule removes the requirements for a contractor to notify the DOE Contracting Officer when the contract may require export activities and for a contractor to assure the DOE Contracting Officer of its ability to comply with U.S. export laws and regulations. The reporting and notification requirements in the proposed rule were not required by any law or regulation, or recommended by any auditors. The purpose of the Export Clauses is to clarify that DOE contractors should consult appropriate export licensing agencies, and not DOE Contracting Officers, with questions regarding compliance with export-controlled activities. The reporting and notification requirements were removed from the rule to avoid any implication that DOE Contracting Officers have any export compliance responsibilities.

    15. Comment: Two respondents were concerned about the impact on small business subcontractors and universities.

    Response: U.S. export control laws and regulations already apply to activities conducted by small businesses and by universities that have DOE contracts, so there would be no substantive change regarding export control requirements applicable to these entities. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    16. Comment: Three respondents claimed that the proposed rule is not consistent with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 because “products” most often generated and disseminated while performing fundamental research are scientific findings excluded from export regulations under the “Fundamental Research Exclusion” set forth in NSDD-189 and the exclusion of fundamental research from export controls in EAR and ITAR provisions.

    Response: NSDD 189 establishes a national policy that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research shall remain unrestricted. NSDD 189 provides that no restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes. As a result, contracts confined to the performance of unclassified fundamental research generally do not involve any export-controlled activities. NSDD 189 does not take precedence over statutes. As it clearly states in the directive, NSDD 189 does not exempt any research from statutes that apply to export control laws and regulations. In addition, NSDD 189 is focused on the products of fundamental research and does not exempt access to export-controlled technology used or generated during the conduct of fundamental research. The final rule therefore is consistent with NSDD-189 regarding fundamental research because it does not have an impact on the NSDD-189 exemption for fundamental research and it does not modify restrictions already imposed by U.S. export control laws and regulations on research.

    DFARS PGI-225.79 (revised June 17, 2013) and [the final rule on the release of fundamental research information in DFARS 252.204-7000 (August 8, 2013) address release of fundamental research information]. Note that the revised DFARS PGI-225 places reporting requirements on contractors who want to release information that they have determined to be the product of fundamental research. This final rule does not place any reporting requirements on the release of fundamental research by DOE contractors.

    17. Comment: Two respondents questioned the scope of the Export Restriction Notice requirement.

    Response: The Export Restriction Notice requirement has been removed from the final rule because requirements for the use of such a notice are defined in 41 CFR 109 and do not need to be restated in this rule.

    18. Comment: Three respondents recommended that DOE would be better served by providing educational materials to contractors to increase export compliance awareness.

    Response: The purpose of the new rule is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at appropriate export licensing agencies, and not to ask for export control compliance assistance from DOE Contracting Officers. Compliance training offices of Department of Commerce, Department of State and other agencies provide appropriate training on their respective export regulations. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    19. Comment: Two respondents believed that DOE may inadvertently assume liability because of requirements in the Export Clauses should a contractor be in non-compliance with export control requirements.

    Response: DOE will not assume any liability due to inclusion of the Export Clauses in contracts or for contractor noncompliance with export control requirements. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    20. Comment: Eight respondents claimed that the proposed rule potentially increases DOE contractors' risk by specifically listing regulations in the contract. They also were concerned that contractors could be liable under the False Claims Act and other laws for their actions or for those of their subcontractors. If the contractor is not in compliance with export control regulations, it may also be subject to Qui Tam penalties, and the rule would make failure to comply with export regulations a contractual obligation. This liability may be assumed by the M&O contractor for all of its subcontractors, including lower-tier subcontractors.

    Response: The Export Clauses in the final rule do not require reporting or written assurances. Contractors will not assume new liabilities due to insertion of the Export Clauses in DOE contracts.

    21. Comment: One respondent claimed that the proposed rule potentially increases DOE contractors' risk by requiring the contractor to identify specific aspects of the contract governed by export laws.

    Response: For the reasons stated previously, reporting and written assurance requirements have been removed from the final rule.

    22. Comment: One respondent claimed that adoption of the proposed regulation would increase costs for DOE procurements.

    Response: For the reasons stated previously, reporting requirements and written assurances have been removed from the final rule. The only de minimis costs associated with the final rule are costs to add the Export Clauses to solicitations and contracts. No further change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    23. Comment: One respondent believed that the rule affects 10 CFR part 810 procedures for contractors subject to that regulation.

    Response: The proposed rule does not affect implementation of 10 CFR part 810 with respect to DOE program activities. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    24. Comment: One respondent claimed that DOE Contracting Officers will be required to submit all DOE contracts to the Office of Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS) of the National Nuclear Security Administration for 10 CFR part 810 review.

    Response: The reporting requirements have been removed from the revised rule. The rule does not place any requirements on DOE Contracting Officers to submit contracts to the office now called the Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control for 10 CFR part 810 review. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    25. Comment: Two respondents asked that this rule to be pursued in conjunction with the revised 10 CFR part 810.

    Response: The final rule amending 10 CFR part 810 (part 810) was issued on February 23, 2015. 80 FR 9359 (Feb. 23, 2014). The purpose of that final rule and this final rule are different. Part 810 controls the export of unclassified nuclear technology and assistance, and is one of the export rules that may apply to contractors. It was revised to, among other things, reflect current global civil nuclear trade practices. The purpose of this rule final is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at export licensing agencies regarding export rules such as 10 CFR part 810. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

    26. Comment: Two respondents stated that the meaning of “transfer” is not clear.

    Response: References to “transfers” have been removed from the final rule.

    27. Comment: One respondent stated that the list of items to be transferred that are subject to the Notice is ambiguous.

    Response: The Export Restriction Notice has been removed from the rule.

    28. Comment: One respondent pointed out that DOE cites obsolete and unavailable references with regard to DoD directives. For instance, DOE lists DOE Order 580.1A which directs the reader to follow requirements in a DoD Demilitarization Manual 4160.21-M-1, that was cancelled and replaced. In addition, the replacement (DoD 4160.28-M series) directs users to obtain disposal guidance for ITAR items from Web sites that are available only to DoD components or those with .mil email addresses.

    Response: References to specific DOE Orders in the rule have been removed. References in the NOPR were current at the time that it was published.

    29. Comment: Six respondents recommended that the rule more closely follow the DoD example in the revised DFARS.

    Response: The final rule has been revised consistent with June 17, 2013, changes to sections 225.79 and 252.225-7048 of the DFARS and the DFARS PGI-225.

    30. Comment: One respondent disagreed with the implication in the Export Restriction Notice that all items are subject to export controls.

    Response: The Export Restriction Notice has been removed from the final rule. As noted above, the phrase “subject to export controls” has been removed from the Export Clauses.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this rule is not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to, and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing, regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

    B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law; these proposed regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003), DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).

    DOE certifies that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule is intended only to recognize existing export control compliance obligations and to clarify the role of DOE and its contracting officers in relation to these requirements. The rule itself does not impose any new requirements on manufacturers. In addition, DOE notes that the reporting requirements referenced in the proposed rule have been eliminated from the final rule for the reasons discussed in response to the comments received on this issue. DOE transmitted this certification to the Small Business Administration (SBA) as required by 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. DOE's procurement reporting and recordkeeping burdens have been approved under OMB Control No. 1910-4100.

    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has concluded that promulgation of this final rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this final rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the DEAR are strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this final rule does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined today's rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This rulemaking does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule or policy that may affect family well being. This rule will have no impact on family well-being. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution and use. Today's rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under implementing guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13609

    Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” requires that, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each Federal agency shall:

    (a) If required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

    (b) Ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

    (c) In selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

    (i) Reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

    (ii) Such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

    (d) For significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

    DOE has reviewed this final rule under the provisions of Executive Order 13609 and determined that the rule complies with all requirements set forth in the order.

    L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

    The Office of the Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this final rule.

    M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 925, 952 and 970

    Government procurement.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 8, 2015. Patrick Ferraro, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, the DOE is amending Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

    PART 925—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 1. The authority citation for part 925 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., and 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

    2. Subpart 925.71 is added to part 925 to read as follows: Subpart 925.71—Export Control Sec. 925.7100 Scope of subpart. 925.7101 Policy. 925.7102 Contract clause. Subpart 925.71—Export Control
    925.7100 Scope of subpart.

    This subpart implements Department of Energy (DOE) requirements for contractors concerning compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations.

    925.7101 Policy.

    (a) DOE and its contractors must comply with all applicable U.S. export control laws and regulations.

    (b) Export control laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as amended; the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b), as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961); Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 810); Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774); International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 130); Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110); and regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (31 CFR parts 500 through 598).

    (c) Contractors seeking guidance on how to comply with export control laws and regulations should review the illustrative list of laws and regulations set forth in Clause 952.225-71. Contractors also may contact the agencies responsible for administration of export laws or regulations applicable to a particular export (e.g., Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury and Energy, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

    (d) DOE Contracting Officers will not answer contractor questions regarding how to comply with U.S. export laws and regulations. Contracting Officers should direct contractors to the export laws, regulations, and agencies cited in the Export Clause at section 952.225-71 of this subpart.

    (e) It is the contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this subpart.

    925.7102 Contract clause.

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 952.225-71, Compliance with Export Control Laws and Regulations (Export Clause), in all solicitations and contracts.

    PART 952—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 952 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

    4. Section 952.225-71 is added to read as follows:
    952.225-71 Compliance with export control laws and regulations (Export Clause)

    As prescribed in 925.7102, use the following clause:

    COMPLIANCE WITH EXPORT CONTROL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (NOV 2015)

    (a) The Contractor shall comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations.

    (b) The Contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information provided by this clause.

    (c) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds to, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders, and regulations, including but not limited to—

    (1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as amended;

    (2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);

    (3) The Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

    (4) Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b), as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961);

    (5) Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 CFR part 810);

    (6) Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110);

    (7) International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130);

    (8) Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR Parts730 through 774); and

    (9) The regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (31 CFR parts 500 through 598).

    (d) In addition to the Federal laws and regulations cited above, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical, and Engineering Information, establishes a national policy that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research shall remain unrestricted. NSDD 189 provides that no restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes. As a result, contracts confined to the performance of unclassified fundamental research generally do not involve any export-controlled activities.

    NSDD 189 does not take precedence over statutes. NSDD 189 does not exempt any research from statutes that apply to export controls such as the Atomic Energy Act, as amended; the Arms Export Control Act; the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended; or the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or regulations that implement parts of those statutes (e.g., the ITAR, the EAR, 10 CFR part 110 and 10 CFR part 810). Thus, if items (e.g., commodities, software or technologies) that are controlled by U.S. export control laws or regulations are used to conduct research or are generated as part of the research efforts, export control laws and regulations apply to the controlled items.

    (e) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all solicitations and subcontracts.

    PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS 5. The authority citation for part 970 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

    6. Subpart 970.25 is revised to read as follows: Subpart 970.25—Foreign Acquisition Sec. 970.2570 Buy American Act. 970.2570-1 Contract clause. 970.2571 Export control. 970.2571-1 Scope of subpart. 970.2571-2 Policy. 970.2571-3 Contract clause. Subpart 970.25—Foreign Acquisition
    970.2570 Buy American Act.
    970.2570-1 Contract clause.

    Contracting officers shall insert the clauses at 48 CFR 52.225-1, Buy American Act—Supplies, and 48 CFR 52.225-9, Buy American Act—Construction Materials, in management and operating contracts. The clause at 48 CFR 52.225-1 shall be modified in paragraph (d) of this section by substituting the word “use” for the word “deliver.”

    970.2571 Export control.
    970.2571-1 Scope of subpart.

    This subpart implements DOE requirements for DOE management and operating contractors concerning compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations.

    970.2571-2 Policy.

    (a) DOE and its contractors must comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations.

    (b) Export control laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b), as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961); Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 810); Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774); International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 130); Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110); and regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (31 CFR parts 500 through 598).

    (c) Contractors seeking guidance on how to comply with export control requirements should review the illustrative list of laws and regulations applicable to the export of unclassified information, materials, technology, equipment or software set forth in clause 970.5225-1. Contractors also may contact the agencies responsible for administration of export laws and regulations applicable to a particular export (e.g., Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury and Energy, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

    (d) The contracting officer will not answer any questions a contractor may ask regarding how to comply with export regulations. If asked, the contracting officer should direct the contractor to export regulations and agencies cited in the Export Clause at 970.5225-1.

    (e) It is the contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable U.S. export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this subpart.

    970.2571-3 Contract clause.

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 970.5225-1, Compliance with Export Control Laws and Regulations (Export Clause), in all solicitations and contracts.

    Subpart 970.52—Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for Management and Operating Contracts
    7. Section 970.5225-1 is added to read as follows:
    970.5225-1 Compliance with export control laws and regulations (Export Clause).

    As prescribed in 970.2571-3, use the following clause:

    COMPLIANCE WITH EXPORT CONTROL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (NOV 2015)

    (a) The Contractor shall comply with all applicable U.S. export control laws and regulations.

    (b) The Contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information provided by this clause.

    (c) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds to, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders, and regulations, including but not limited to—

    (1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

    (2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);

    (3) The Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

    (4) Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b), as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961);

    (5) Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 CFR part 810);

    (6) Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110);

    (7) International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130);

    (8) Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730 through 774); and

    (9) Regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (31 CFR parts 500 through 598).

    (d) In addition to the Federal laws and regulations cited above, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical, and Engineering Information establishes a national policy that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research shall remain unrestricted. NSDD 189 provides that no restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes. As a result, contracts confined to the performance of unclassified fundamental research generally do not involve any export-controlled activities.

    NSDD 189 does not take precedence over statutes. NSDD 189 does not exempt any research from statutes that apply to export controls such as the Atomic Energy Act, as amended; the Arms Export Control Act; the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended; or the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act; or the regulations that implement those statutes (e.g., the ITAR, the EAR, 10 CFR part 110 and 10 CFR part 810). Thus, if items (e.g., commodities, software or technologies) that are controlled by U.S. export control laws or regulations are used to conduct research or are generated as part of the research efforts, the export control laws and regulations apply to the controlled items.

    (e) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all solicitations and subcontracts.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26476 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    80 205 Friday, October 23, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022] RIN 1904-AD00 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 19, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register regarding energy conservation standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines (BVM ECS NOPR). DOE also held a public meeting on September 29, 2015. The comment period was scheduled to end October 19, 2015. After receiving a request for additional time to prepare and submit comments, DOE has decided to reopen the comment period for submitting comments regarding the BVM ECS NOPR. The comment period is reopened through November 23, 2015.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information in response to the NOPR received no later than November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, and provide docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD00. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include the docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022 and/or RIN 1904-AD00 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: [www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022]. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email [email protected]:.

    For legal issues, please contact Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 19, 2015, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register regarding energy conservation standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines (BVM ECS NOPR). 80 FR 50462. The notice provided for the submission of written comments by October 19, 2015, and oral comments were also accepted at a public meeting held on September 29, 2015.

    DOE received a request from several stakeholders requesting additional time to prepare and submit comments (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022, Royal Vendors, No. 46 at p. 1, NAMA, No. 44 at p. 1, and AMS, No. 43 at p. 1). In response to these requests, DOE is reopening the public comment period to allow interested parties to provide DOE with written comments and data in response to the BVM ECS NOPR.

    DOE will consider any comments in response to the BVM ECS NOPR received by midnight of November 23, 2015, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15. 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27001 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031] RIN 1904-AD20 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 14, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the Federal Register regarding energy conservation standards for residential furnaces (RF ECS NODA). The comment period was scheduled to end October 14, 2015. After receiving a request for additional time to prepare and submit comments, DOE has decided to reopen the comment period for submitting comments regarding the RF ECS NODA. The comment period is reopened through November 6, 2015.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information in response to the NODA received no later than November 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any comments submitted must identify the NODA for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces, and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD20. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include the docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031 and/or RIN 1904-AD20 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: [www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031]. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email [email protected]:.

    For legal issues, please contact Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 14, 2015, DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the Federal Register regarding energy conservation standards for residential furnaces (RF ECS NODA). 80 FR 55038. The notice requested that interested parties submit written comments by October 14, 2015.

    DOE received a joint request from the American Gas Association (AGA) and the American Public Gas Association (APGA) requesting additional time to prepare and submit comments (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031, AGA/APGA, No. 168 at p. 2). In response to this request, DOE is reopening the public comment period to allow interested parties to provide DOE with written comments and data in response to the RF ECS NODA.

    DOE will consider any comments in response to the RF ECS NODA received by midnight of November 6, 2015, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27002 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4204; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-001-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes) modified by a particular supplemental type certificate (STC). This proposed AD was prompted by a report of chafing found on the overflow sensor harness of the surge tank, and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection for damage of the outer tank of the overflow sensor harness, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require modification of the sensor harness. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing of the harness and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure, which could result in electrical arcing and a fuel tank explosion.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Simmonds Precision Products, Inc., A UTC Aerospace Company, 100 Panton Road, Vergennes, Vermont 05491; phone 802-877-2911; fax 802-877-4444; Internet http://www.utcaerospacesystems.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4204; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marc Ronell, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7776; fax: 781-238-7170; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4204; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0193, dated August 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300-600 series airplanes.

    The MCAI corresponds to FAA AD 2015-03-03, Amendment 39-18099 (80 FR 11101, March 2, 2015), which applies to Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and Model A300-600 series airplanes, all serial numbers, except for airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST00092BO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/D41C5AE8E46B4901862574900069E004?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00092bo).

    In AD 2015-03-03, Amendment 39-18099 (80 FR 11101, March 2, 2015), we explained that airplanes that have had the in-tank fuel quantity system modified by STC ST00092BO cannot accomplish the actions required by AD 2015-03-03 by using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6109, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2013.

    We also stated that we were considering separate rulemaking to require the procedures and compliance time specified in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014, for airplanes modified by STC ST00092BO. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    UTC Aerospace Systems has issued Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), Revision 01, dated July 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for damage of the outer tank of the overflow sensor harness, repair, and modification of the sensor harness. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the inspections required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators to be $16,575, or $255 per product.

    We estimate that it takes about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the modification requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $100 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this modification on U.S. operators to be $67,275, or $1,035 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-4204; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-001-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 7, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD; certificated in any category; modified by Simmonds Precision Products, Inc., supplemental type certificate (STC) ST00092BO (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/D41C5AE8E46B4901862v574900069E004?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00092bo).

    (1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (2) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (3) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of chafing found on the overflow sensor harness of the surge tank, and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the harness and subsequent contact between the electrical wiring and fuel tank structure, which could result in electrical arcing and a fuel tank explosion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) One-Time Inspection and Repair

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), Revision 01, dated July 20, 2015.

    (1) Perform a one-time general visual inspection for damage of the outer tank sensor harness, and if any damage is found on the expando sleeving, before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the underlying wires for exposed conductor wires. If any exposed conductor wire is found, before further flight, replace the outer wing harness assembly.

    (2) Install new brackets and re-route the surge tank overflow sensor harness.

    (3) Modify the harness protection.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 300723-28-03 (V-1577), dated October 10, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) ANE-150, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Marc Ronell, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7776; fax: 781-238-7170; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Simmonds Precision Products, Inc., A UTC Aerospace Company, 100 Panton Road, Vergennes, Vermont 05491; phone 802-877-2911; fax 802-877-4444; Internet http://www.utcaerospacesystems.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 15, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26691 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-23-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of the installation of non-conforming honeycomb seals in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) adjacent to the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool and stage 7 to 9 spool. This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the affected HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10, phone: 800-565-0140; email: [email protected]; Web site: www.engineallianceportal.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-23-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We learned from the manufacturer that non-conforming honeycomb seals were installed in the affected HPCs adjacent to the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spools and stage 7 to 9 spools. The honeycomb seals in the HPC were machined to an incorrect radial height which resulted in reduced clearances between the honeycomb and the rotating spools. This error could lead to cracks on the spools prior to reaching their full life. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools, which could lead to uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Engine Alliance has issued EA Service Bulletin (SB) No. EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015; and SB No. EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015. The SBs describe procedures for removal and replacement of HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spools and HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spools, respectively. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the affected HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects zero engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $0.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Engine Alliance: Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-23-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 22, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engines with one or both of the following installed:

    (1) A high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor stage 2 to 5 spool, part number (P/N) 382-104-807-0, with a serial number (S/N) listed in EA Service Bulletin (SB) No. EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015; or

    (2) an HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spool, P/N 2031M90G04, 2031M90G05, or 2031M90G07, with an S/N listed in EA SB No. EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the installation of non-conforming honeycomb seals in the HPC adjacent to the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool and stage 7 to 9 spool. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spools and stage 7 to 9 spools, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD or before accumulating 2,100 engine cycles since the last disassembly of the compressor module of the engine, whichever occurs later:

    (1) For engines with an HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool, P/N 382-104-807-0, installed with a S/N listed in EA SB No. EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015, do the following:

    (i) Remove the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.

    (ii) Remove and replace the honeycomb seals on the HPC stage 5 vanes.

    (2) For engines with an HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spool, P/N 2031M90G04, 2031M90G05, or 2031M90G07 installed with an S/N listed in EA SB No. EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015, do the following:

    (i) Remove the HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spool from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.

    (ii) Remove and replace the honeycomb seals on the HPC stage 6, stage 7, and stage 8 vanes.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) EA SBs No. EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015; and No. EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015 can be obtained from EA using the contact information in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10, phone: 800-565-0140; email: [email protected]; Web site: www.engineallianceportal.com.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 16, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26755 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4202; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-016-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-18-12, for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. AD 2012-18-12 currently requires modifying the off-wing escape slide (OWS) enclosures on the left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side of the fuselage. Since we issued AD 2012-18-12, we have received reports that additional OWS part numbers have been affected. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2012-18-12 and expand the applicability to all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. We are proposing this AD to prevent off-wing exits on the LH and RH sides of the fuselage from becoming inoperative, which, during an emergency, could impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. For Air Cruisers service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Air Cruisers Company, Cage Code 70167, 1747 State Route 34, Wall Township, NJ 07727-3935; telephone 732-681-3527; fax 732-681-9163; Internet http://www.zodiacaerospace.com/en/our-activities/aerosafety/zodiac-evacuation-systems. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4202; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4202; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-016-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On August 31, 2012, we issued AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012). AD 2012-18-12 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012), we received reports that additional OWS part numbers have been affected which requires expanding the applicability to all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0025R1, dated May 26, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    One operator reported a torn out aspirator during scheduled deployment (for on ground testing purposes) of the Left Hand (LH) off-wing [escape] slide (OWS). Investigation results revealed that the aspirator of the OWS system interfered with the extrusion lip of the OWS enclosure during the initial stage of the deployment sequence.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an off-wing exit, either LH or Right Hand (RH), becoming unserviceable, which, during an emergency situation, could impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-25-1649 containing modification instructions for certain part number (P/N) OWS enclosures. Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2010-0210 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2010-0210)] which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012)] to require modification of the affected OWS enclosures.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, several other OWS P/N[s] have been identified as potentially impacted.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0210, which is superseded, expands the Applicability to all A318, A319 and A320 aeroplanes, and expands the batch of affected P/N[s] prohibited to be installed on an aeroplane.

    For the reason described above, EASA issued AD 2014-0025, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2010-0210, which was superseded, expanding the Applicability to all A318, A319 and A320 aeroplanes, and expanding the batch of affected P/N[s] prohibited to be installed on an aeroplane. That [EASA] AD also retained the requirements of * * * [an AD, which was superseded], which required modification of the OWS and its aspirator.

    This [EASA] AD is revised to amend paragraphs (1) and (3) to restore the original applicability of DGAC France AD 2001-380 and EASA AD 2010-0210, respectively, and to correct paragraph (2) to give credit for certain production modifications that were equivalent for the in-service actions previously required by DGAC France AD 2001-380.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4202.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 03, dated December 5, 2001. This service information describes procedures for modifying OWS enclosures having part numbers (P/N) D31865-101, D31865-102, D31865-103, D31865-104, D31865-105, D31865-106, D31865-107, or D31865-108 of certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1265, Revision 01, dated December 5, 2001. This service information describes procedures for modifying and installing the OWS enclosure on the LH and RH sides of the fuselage on certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1649, dated February 16, 2010. This service information describes procedures for modifying and installing OWS enclosures having part numbers (P/N) D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, or D31865-210, on the LH and RH sides of the fuselage on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes.

    Air Cruisers has issued Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 4, dated November 9, 2012. This service information describes procedures for modifying LH and RH OWS.

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take about 14 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-18-12 is $1,190 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 48 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,472,080, or $4,080 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-4202; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-016-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 7, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces (AD) 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Model 320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a torn out aspirator due to the aspirator interfering with the extrusion lip of the off-wing escape slide (OWS) enclosure during the initial stage of the deployment sequence. This AD was also prompted by reports that additional OWS part numbers have been affected which requires expanding the applicability to all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent off-wing exits on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the fuselage from becoming inoperative, which, during an emergency, could impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Modification

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012) with no changes. For airplanes equipped with OWS enclosures having part number (P/N) D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, or D31865-210, except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Within 36 months after October 22, 2012, (the effective date of AD 2012-18-12), modify the OWS enclosures and install an OWS enclosure having P/N D31865-309, D31865-311, D31865-310, or D31865-312 on the LH side and RH side of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1649, dated February 16, 2010.

    (h) New Modification of Affected OWS Enclosures and Aspirators

    For airplanes equipped with an OWS enclosure having P/N D31865-101, D31865-102, D31865-103, D31865-104, D31865-105, D31865-106, D31865-107, or D31865-108, except as provided by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Modify the OWS enclosures and their aspirators in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 03, dated December 5, 2001.

    (2) Install off-wing escape slides having P/N D31865-109, D31865-110, D31865-209, or D31865-210 on the LH side and RH side of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1265, Revision 01, dated December 5, 2001; and accomplish the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Exceptions to the Requirements of Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD

    (1) Airplanes having Airbus modification 30088 embodied in production using an OWS enclosure having P/N D31865-111 or D31865-112 are not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, unless a replacement OWS enclosure, having a part number listed in paragraphs (k)(9) through (k)(12) of this AD, has been installed on that airplane since first flight.

    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus modifications 24850, 25844, and 27275 have been embodied in production, or on which modifications of the LH and RH OWS enclosures and their aspirators have been accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 01, dated February 2, 1999, or Revision 2, dated October 26, 1999, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1265, dated June 6, 2001, are compliant with the modification requirement of paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (j) Optional Method of Compliance for Paragraph (g) of This AD

    Installing both LH and RH OWS that have been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 4, dated November 9, 2012, is an acceptable method of compliance with the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Part Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane an OWS enclosure having a part number listed in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(12) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD for the OWS enclosures identified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) D31865-101 (2) D31865-102 (3) D31865-103 (4) D31865-104 (5) D31865-105 (6) D31865-106 (7) D31865-107 (8) D31865-108 (9) D31865-109 (10) D31865-110 (11) D31865-209 (12) D31865-210 (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 01, dated February 2, 1999.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1156, Revision 02, dated October 26, 1999.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1265, dated June 6, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (l)(3)(i), (l)(3)(ii), (l)(3)(iii), or (l)(3)(iv) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference.

    (i) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, dated February 5, 2010.

    (ii) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2010.

    (iii) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 2, dated February 11, 2011.

    (iv) Air Cruisers Service Bulletin A320 004-25-84, Revision 3, dated October 28, 2011.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149 Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-18-12, Amendment 39-17189 (77 FR 57003, September 17, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2014-0025R1, dated May 26, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4202.

    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. For Air Cruisers service information identified in this AD, contact Air Cruisers Company, Cage Code 70167, 1747 State Route 34, Wall Township, NJ 07727-3935; telephone 732-681-3527; fax 732-681-9163; Internet http://www.zodiacaerospace.com/en/our-activities/aerosafety/zodiac-evacuation-systems. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 11, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26611 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1, 20, 25, 26, 31, and 301 [REG-148998-13] RIN 1545-BM10 Definition of Terms Relating to Marital Status AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations that reflect the holdings of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), Windsor v. United States, 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (2013-38 IRB 201), and that define terms in the Internal Revenue Code (Code) describing the marital status of taxpayers. The proposed regulations primarily affect married couples, employers, sponsors and administrators of employee benefit plans, and executors. This document invites comments from the public regarding these proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148998-13), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-148998-13), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC; or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-148998-13).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed amendments to the regulations, Mark Shurtliff at (202) 317-3400; concerning submissions of comments and requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions

    This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1), the Estate Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 20), the Gift Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 25), the Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 26), the Employment Tax and Collection of Income Tax at Source Regulations (26 CFR part 31), and the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 CFR part 301).

    Amendments to Regulations Incorporating Holdings of Windsor, Obergefell, and Revenue Ruling 2013-17

    On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which generally prohibited the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, is unconstitutional because it violates the principles of equal protection and due process. Revenue Ruling 2013-17 provides guidance on the Windsor decision's effect on the IRS's interpretation of Code sections that refer to taxpayers' marital status. Cf. Notice 2014-19 (2014-47 IRB 979), amplified by Notice 2014-37 (2014-24 IRB 1100) (regarding the application of the Windsor decision to qualified retirement plans); Notice 2014-1 (2014-02 IRB 270) (regarding elections and reimbursements for same-sex spouses under cafeteria plans, flexible spending arrangements, and health savings accounts following the Windsor decision); Notice 2013-61 (2013-44 IRB 432) (regarding the application of the Windsor decision and Rev. Rul. 2013-17 to employment taxes and special administrative procedures for employers to make adjustments or claims for refund or credit); and Revenue Procedure 2014-18 (2014-7 IRB 513) (regarding extensions of time for estates to make a portability election). On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __ (2015), held that state laws are “invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples” and “that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 23, 28.

    In light of the holdings of Windsor and Obergefell, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that, for federal tax purposes, marriages of couples of the same-sex should be treated the same as marriages of couples of the opposite-sex and that, for reasons set forth in Revenue Ruling 2013-17, terms indicating sex, such as “husband,” “wife,” and “husband and wife,” should be interpreted in a neutral way to include same-sex spouses as well as opposite-sex spouses. Accordingly, these proposed regulations amend the current regulations under section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to provide that, for federal tax purposes, the terms “spouse,” “husband,” and “wife” mean an individual lawfully married to another individual, and the term “husband and wife” means two individuals lawfully married to each other. These definitions apply regardless of sex.

    In addition, these proposed regulations provide that a marriage of two individuals will be recognized for federal tax purposes if that marriage would be recognized by any state, possession, or territory of the United States. Under this rule, whether a marriage conducted in a foreign jurisdiction will be recognized for federal tax purposes depends on whether that marriage would be recognized in at least one state, possession, or territory of the United States. This comports with the general principles of comity where countries recognize actions taken in foreign jurisdictions, but only to the extent those actions do not violate their own laws. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 167 (1895) (“A judgment affecting the status of persons, such as a decree confirming or dissolving a marriage, is recognized as valid in every country, unless contrary to the policy of its own law.”).

    Although these proposed regulations define terms relating to marital status for federal tax purposes, the IRS may provide additional guidance as needed. For example, the IRS has already issued more particular guidance for employers regarding the application of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 to qualified retirement plans, and that guidance remains in effect. See Notice 2014-19 (2014-47 IRB 979).

    Registered Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions, or Other Similar Relationships Not Denominated as Marriage

    For federal tax purposes, the term “marriage” does not include registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar relationships recognized under state law that are not denominated as a marriage under that state's law, and the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” do not include individuals who have entered into such a relationship.

    Except when prohibited by statute, the IRS has traditionally looked to the states to define marital status. See Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 223 (1934) (“Marriages not polygamous or incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statute, will, if valid by the law of the state where entered into, be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction.”); see also Revenue Ruling 58-66 (1958-1 CB 60) (if a state recognizes a common-law marriage as a valid marriage, the IRS will also recognize the couple as married for purposes of federal income tax filing status and personal exemptions). States have carefully considered the types of relationships that they choose to recognize as a marriage and the types that they choose to recognize as something other than a marriage. Although some states extend all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to couples in registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar relationships, those states have intentionally chosen not to denominate those relationships as marriages. Similar rules exist in some foreign jurisdictions.

    Some couples have chosen to enter into a civil union or registered domestic partnership even when they could have married, and some couples who are in a civil union or registered domestic partnership have chosen not to convert those relationships into a marriage even when they have had the opportunity to do so. In many cases, this choice was deliberate, and couples who enter into civil unions or registered domestic partnerships may have done so with the expectation that their relationship will not be treated as a marriage for purposes of federal law. For some of these couples, there are benefits to being in a relationship that provides some, but not all, of the protections and responsibilities of marriage. For example, some individuals who were previously married and receive Social Security benefits as a result of their previous marriage may choose to enter into a civil union or registered domestic partnership (instead of a marriage) so that they do not lose their Social Security benefits. More generally, the rates at which some couples' income is taxed may increase if they are considered married and thus required to file a married-filing-separately or married-filing-jointly federal income tax return. Treating couples in civil unions and registered domestic partnerships the same as married couples who are in a relationship denominated as marriage under state law could undermine the expectations certain couples have regarding the scope of their relationship. Further, no provision of the Code indicates that Congress intended to recognize as marriages civil unions, registered domestic partnerships, or similar relationships. Accordingly, the IRS will not treat civil unions, registered domestic partnerships, or other similar relationships as marriages for federal tax purposes.

    Effect on Other Documents

    These proposed regulations would, as of the date they are published as final regulations in the Federal Register, obsolete Revenue Ruling 2013-17. Taxpayers may continue to rely on guidance related to the application of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 to employee benefit plans and the benefits provided under such plans, including Notice 2013-61, Notice 2014-37, Notice 2014-19, and Notice 2014-1.

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    The regulations, as proposed, would be applicable as of the date of publication of a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Statement of Availability for IRS Documents

    For copies of recently issued Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices, and other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, please visit the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov.

    Special Analyses

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

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the Addresses heading. Treasury and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Mark Shurtliff of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration.

    List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 20

    Estate taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 25

    Gift taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 26

    Estate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 31

    Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security, Unemployment compensation.

    26 CFR Part 301

    Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 20, 25, 26, 31, and 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par 2. Section 1.7701-1 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.7701-1 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage.

    (a) In general. For the definition of the terms spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, and marriage, see § 301.7701-18 of this chapter.

    (b) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulation in the Federal Register.

    PART 20—ESTATE TAX; ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER AUGUST 16, 1954 Par. 3. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 4. Section 20.7701-2 is added to read as follows:
    § 20.7701-2 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage.

    (a) In general. For the definition of the terms spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, and marriage, see § 301.7701-18 of this chapter.

    (b) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulation in the Federal Register.

    PART 25—GIFT TAX; GIFTS MADE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1954 Par. 5. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 6. Section 25.7701-2 is added to read as follows:
    § 25.7701-2 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage.

    (a) In general. For the definition of the terms spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, and marriage, see § 301.7701-18 of this chapter.

    (b) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulation in the Federal Register.

    PART 26—GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX REGULATIONS UNDER THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1986 Par. 7. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 8. Section 26.7701-2 is added to read as follows:
    § 26.7701-2 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage.

    (a) In general. For the definition of the terms spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, and marriage, see § 301.7701-18 of this chapter.

    (b) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulation in the Federal Register.

    PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT THE SOURCE Par. 9. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 10. Section 31.7701-2 is added to read as follows:
    § 31.7701-2 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage.

    (a) In general. For the definition of the terms spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, and marriage, see § 301.7701-18 of this chapter.

    (b) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulation in the Federal Register.

    PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Par. 11. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 12. Section 301.7701-18 is added to read as follows:
    § 301.7701-18 Definitions; spouse, husband and wife, husband, wife, marriage.

    (a) In general. For federal tax purposes, the terms spouse, husband, and wife mean an individual lawfully married to another individual. The term husband and wife means two individuals lawfully married to each other.

    (b) Persons who are married for federal tax purposes. A marriage of two individuals is recognized for federal tax purposes if the marriage would be recognized by any state, possession, or territory of the United States.

    (c) Persons who are not married for federal tax purposes. The terms spouse, husband, and wife do not include individuals who have entered into a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or other similar relationship not denominated as a marriage under the law of a state, possession, or territory of the United States. The term husband and wife does not include couples who have entered into such a relationship, and the term marriage does not include such relationships.

    (d) Effective/applicability date. The rules of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulation in the Federal Register.

    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26890 Filed 10-21-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0562: FRL-9935-47-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Open Burning Rules and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Enforcement Procedures AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve into Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) a submittal from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) dated July 7, 2014, containing revisions to the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency's (LRAPA) open burning rules adopted on March 14, 2008. The revised LRAPA open burning rules make clarifications and provide for additional controls of open burning activities in Lane County, would reduce particulate emissions in Lane County, and would strengthen Oregon's SIP. The EPA is also proposing to approve a submittal from the ODEQ dated June 30, 2014, to update Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) that relate to procedures in contested cases (appeals), enforcement procedures, and civil penalties. The EPA is proposing to approve most of the submitted provisions because the revisions clarify and strengthen the SIP and are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is not proposing to approve certain provisions of the submitted rules that do not relate to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA. Finally, the EPA is proposing to correct the SIP pursuant to the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove certain provisions previously approved by the EPA that do not relate to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0562, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Mr. Keith Rose, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101

    Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith Rose at telephone number: (206) 553-1949, email address: [email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. The EPA is simultaneously approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If the EPA receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: September 25, 2015. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26145 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15 and 73 [GN Docket No. 12-268; Report No. 3028] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking Proceeding by Ari Q. Fitzgerald, on behalf of GE Healthcare; Ronald J. Bruno on behalf of The VideoHouse, Inc.; Benjamin Perez on behalf of Abacus Television; Lawrence Rogow on behalf of WMTM, LLC; and Larry E. Morton on behalf of KMYA, LLC.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before November 9, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1647, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3028, released September 21, 2015. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Second Order on Reconsideration, published at 80 FR 46824, August 6, 2015, in GN Docket No. 12-268, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26872 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 150929898-5951-01] RIN 0648-XE001; 0648-BF41 International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Treatment of U.S. Purse Seine Fishing With Respect to U.S. Territories AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision on petition for rulemaking; advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document includes two distinct but related NMFS actions. First, NMFS announces that it has denied a petition for rulemaking from Tri Marine Management Company, LLC, related to purse seine fishing effort limits in the area of competence of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission). Second, NMFS issues an advance notice of proposed rulemaking related to the treatment of U.S.-flagged purse seine vessels and their fishing activities in regulations implementing decisions of the Commission.

    DATES:

    Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking must be submitted in writing by November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking, the petition, and the public comments on the petition are available via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (search for Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2015-0088).

    NMFS is not requesting comments on the notice of decision on the petition.

    You may submit comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0128, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0128,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    - OR -

    Mail: Submit written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, might not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name and address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5032.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background on the Convention

    The Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention) focuses on the conservation and management of highly migratory species (HMS) and the management of fisheries for HMS. The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of HMS in the WCPO. To accomplish this objective, the Convention established the Commission, which includes Members, Cooperating Non-members, and Participating Territories. The United States of America is a Member. American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are Participating Territories.

    As a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member of the Commission, the United States implements domestically conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and other decisions of the Commission. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; WCPFC Implementation Act), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the United States Coast Guard is operating (currently the Department of Homeland Security), to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Convention, including the decisions of the Commission. The WCPFC Implementation Act further provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall ensure consistency, to the extent practicable, of fishery management programs administered under the WCPFC Implementation Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as well as other specific laws (see 16 U.S.C. 6905(b)). The Secretary of Commerce has delegated the authority to promulgate regulations under the WCPFC Implementation Act to NMFS. A map showing the boundaries of the area of application of the Convention (Convention Area), which comprises the majority of the WCPO, can be found on the WCPFC Web site at: www.wcpfc.int/doc/convention-area-map.

    Background on Purse Seine Fishing Effort Limits in the Convention Area

    Since 2009, NMFS regulations have established limits on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine fishing vessels in the area of application of the Convention (Convention Area), including in the area known as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS, which is comprised of all areas of high seas and the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between the latitudes of 20° N. and 20° S. in the Convention Area. These regulations are promulgated under authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act and have been codified at 50 CFR 300.223(a).

    NMFS has established the purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS to implement a series of Commission decisions for tropical tuna stocks in the Convention Area.

    NMFS established a purse seine fishing effort limit in the ELAPS for 2015 in an interim rule published May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29220). NMFS issued a final rule, responding to comments on the interim rule and making final the interim rule, on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51476). The limit is 1,828 fishing days.

    On June 8, 2015, NMFS issued a notice announcing that the U.S. purse seine fishery in the ELAPS would close as a result of reaching the limit of 1,828 fishing days (80 FR 32313). The closure took effect June 15, 2015, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2015. The closure applies to all U.S. purse seine fishing vessels. During the closure, fishing vessels of the United States equipped with purse seine gear may not be used to fish in the ELAPS.

    Petition for Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, interested persons may petition Federal agencies for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.

    As described further below, NMFS received such a petition from Tri Marine Management Company, LLC (Tri Marine). On July 17, 2015, NMFS issued a notice of receipt of the petition and a request for comments on the petition (80 FR 42464). The comment period ended August 17, 2015.

    The Petition

    In a petition dated May 12, 2015, Tri Marine requested that NMFS take two actions. First, Tri Marine requested that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas.” Second, Tri Marine requested that “NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any US flag purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.”

    At the time of Tri Marine's initial request, NMFS was preparing to issue an interim rule establishing a limit on purse seine fishing effort in the ELAPS for 2015. As described above, NMFS established a limit in the ELAPS for 2015 in an interim rule published May 21, 2015. Accordingly, the first part of Tri Marine's request has been fully addressed and is not further discussed in this notice. NMFS acknowledged that it had received Tri Marine's petition for rulemaking in the May 21, 2015, interim rule, and stated that it would consider and respond to the petition separately.

    With regard to the second part of Tri Marine's request, the petition explains that as a result of decisions by the Republic of Kiribati, U.S. purse seine vessels' access to their traditional fishing grounds in 2015 has been dramatically reduced, and that the high seas portion of the ELAPS can be expected to be closed to fishing as early as June. The petition further states that because of the limited fishing grounds now available to the American Samoa-based purse seine fleet and other factors, including an unusually low tuna price and the higher cost of access to fishing grounds in the region, the ability of American Samoa-based tuna vessels to operate profitably is in serious question, and the loss of a reliable supply of tuna from these vessels will jeopardize the ability of the canneries in American Samoa to compete in world markets. The petition states that under the Convention, American Samoa is afforded special treatment as a small island developing state or participating territory for purposes of applying conservation and management measures of the Commission, and therefore NMFS should develop rules that exempt from the ELAPS limit those vessels that deliver at least 50 percent of their catch to the canneries in American Samoa.

    The petition includes further information on the basis of the request, including information related to the recommendations of the Governor of American Samoa's Fisheries Task Force, and an “issue brief” with statements about the nature of the issue and how the requested rule(s) would address it.

    In a second letter to NMFS dated May 26, 2015, which supplements the May 12, 2015, petition, Tri Marine acknowledged the interim rule published May 21, 2015, and amended its request to include the U.S. EEZ. Tri Marine requested that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days (both) on the high seas and in the US EEZ,” and further requested that “NOAA issue a rule exempting from the ELAPS limits any US flag purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.”

    Public Comments on the Petition

    NMFS received comments on the petition from about 100 parties, including individuals employed in fish processing facilities in American Samoa and their families and friends; owners, operators and crew members of U.S. purse seine vessels; owners and operators of fish processing facilities in American Samoa; other businesses doing business in American Samoa; non-governmental organizations; and government officials of American Samoa and the United States. Most comments were in favor of the petition. Those in favor cited what they believed are adverse economic impacts of the 2015 ELAPS limit on purse seine fishing businesses, on fish processing facilities and other businesses in American Samoa, on employment in those businesses, and on the American Samoa economy in general. The comments in opposition to the petition argued that the requested action would unfairly favor certain businesses in the U.S. purse seine fishery over others and would be inconsistent with the Convention and the decisions of the Commission.

    Decision on the Petition

    After considering the petition and the public comments on the petition, NMFS finds that it is not appropriate to grant the petitioner's request to issue a rule exempting from the 2015 ELAPS limit any U.S.-flagged purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa. As described in the regulatory impact review prepared for the rule to establish the 2015 ELAPS limit, NMFS found that the limit is expected to have substantial adverse economic impacts on U.S. purse seine fishing businesses in the WCPO, and also that adverse impacts in terms of income and employment could occur in business sectors with backward and forward linkages to the producers. These sectors could include businesses that supply the purse seine fishing vessels, and the fish processing facilities in American Samoa. However, to sufficiently assess whether such impacts, or other circumstances, warrant the regulatory action requested by the petition would require additional information that is not readily available to NMFS, as well as sufficient time to examine such information. In particular, NMFS does not have information that demonstrates that the 2015 ELAPS limit will adversely impact American Samoa's fish processing facilities and its economy in the manner alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner argues that lacking the requested regulatory action, the ability of the American Samoa-based purse seine fleet to operate profitably would be in serious question, and the loss of a reliable supply of tuna from those vessels would jeopardize the ability of the canneries in American Samoa to compete in world markets with lower-cost competitors, and further, that tuna landings and processing are essential to the overall economic health of American Samoa.

    NMFS has received some relevant information in the public comments on the petition, and NMFS intends to collect additional economic and other information. However, NMFS does not yet have sufficient information to determine whether the 2015 ELAPS limit is likely to jeopardize the ability of the American Samoa canneries to compete in world markets, or to determine how the loss of such competitiveness would affect American Samoa's overall economy. Moreover, if the 2015 ELAPS limit is found to impact American Samoa's fish processing facilities and its economy in the manner alleged in the petition, NMFS would need to determine whether the requested action is appropriate to address the problem, and further, whether it can be implemented consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention and other applicable laws. NMFS does not expect that collecting and analyzing the necessary information, determining the appropriate course of action, if any, and completing such action could be accomplished before the end of 2015. For this reason, NMFS denies the second part of Tri Marine's petition for rulemaking.

    Although NMFS has denied the petition, NMFS acknowledges that some of the issues raised in the petition warrant further examination. As described in the following section, NMFS intends to more fully examine the problems raised by the petitioner and by commenters on the petition. If the findings of that examination confirm a problem that—given U.S. obligations under the Convention and other applicable laws—warrants corrective action, NMFS would consider further rulemaking. At this time, however, NMFS cannot predict the timing or provisions of any future proposed or final rule.

    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the WCPFC Implementation Act, NMFS exercises broad discretion when determining how it implements Commission decisions, such as purse seine fishing restrictions. NMFS intends to examine the potential impacts of the domestic implementation of Commission decisions for purse seine fisheries on the economies of the U.S. Participating Territories, and examine the connectivity between the activities of U.S.-flagged purse seine fishing vessels and the economies of the territories. Based on those findings, NMFS will consider proposing regulations that mitigate adverse economic impacts of purse seine fishing restrictions on the U.S. Participating Territories, to the extent consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention. Also, NMFS is considering proposing regulations that recognize that in the context of the Convention, one or more of the U.S. Participating Territories have their own purse seine fisheries that are distinct from the purse seine fishery of the United States. In that case, the purse seine fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories might be subject to special provisions of the Convention and of Commission decisions, and NMFS would implement those provisions and decisions accordingly.

    NMFS notes that the Tri Marine petition focused on the 2015 ELAPS limit. This advanced notice of proposed rulemaking is broader in scope, and could apply to other types of restrictions on purse seine fishing that are adopted by the Commission.

    In summary, NMFS provides notice that it is considering proposing a rule that would establish rules and/or procedures to address the treatment of U.S.-flagged purse seine vessels and their fishing activities and how they relate to the U.S. Participating Territories in regulations issued by NMFS that implement decisions of the Commission.

    NMFS solicits comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. NMFS is particularly interested in receiving any information that would be helpful in assessing the impacts of Commission decisions for purse seine fisheries—as implemented domestically—on the economies of the U.S. Participating Territories, and any information that demonstrates connections between the U.S. Participating Territories and U.S.-flagged purse seine vessels and their fishing activities.

    Classification

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26968 Filed 10-20-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 205 Friday, October 23, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 19, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by November 23, 2015. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Application for Plant Variety Protection Certificate and Objective Description of Variety.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0055.

    Summary of Collection: The Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) (December 24, 1970; 84 Stat. 1542, 7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.) was established to encourage the development of novel varieties of sexually-reproduced plants and make them available to the public, providing intellectual property rights (IPR) protection to those who breed, develop, or discover such novel varieties, and thereby promote progress in agriculture in the public interest. The PVPA is a voluntary user funded program that grants intellectual property ownership rights to breeders of new and novel seed-and tuber-reproduced plant varieties. To obtain these rights the applicant must provide information that shows the variety is eligible for protection and that it is indeed new, distinct, uniform, and stable, as the law requires. Applicants are provided with applications to identify the information that is required to issue a certificate of protection.

    Need and Use of the Information: Applicants must complete the ST-470, “Application for Plant Variety Protection Certificate,” and the ST-470 series of forms, “Objective Description of Variety” along with other forms. The Agricultural Marketing Service will use the information from the applicant to be evaluated by examiners to determine if the variety is eligible for protection under the PVPA. If this information were not collected there will be no basis for issuing certificate of protection, and no way for applicants to request protection.

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

    Number of Respondents: 86.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Other (varies).

    Total Burden Hours: 2,907.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26891 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0059] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Citrus From Peru AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with importation of citrus from Peru.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0059.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0059, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0059 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the importation of citrus from Peru, contact Mr. Juan (Tony) Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Citrus From Peru.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0289.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including fruit flies, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-73).

    In accordance with § 319.56-41, the citrus (grapefruit, limes, mandarins or tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos) from Peru is subject to certain conditions before entering the continental United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, including inspections by national plant protection organization (NPPO) officials from Peru, grower registration and agreement, fruit fly trapping, monitoring, recordkeeping, and a phytosanitary certificate.

    Since the last approval of this collection, we have adjusted the estimates of burden to more accurately reflect the number of grower registrations and agreements, the number of hours for recordkeeping, the number of respondents for phytosanitary certificates, and to account for activities that were omitted from the last collection (fruit fly management program, reinstatement of production sites, permits, and certification and recertification of cold treatment carriers).

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.382 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO of Peru and importers and growers of citrus fruit in Peru.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 31.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 137.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 4,245.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 31,339 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of October 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27099 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0012] Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Pitahaya From Israel Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit from Israel into the continental United States. Based on the findings of the pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public to review and comment through a previous notice, we have concluded that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit from Israel.

    DATES:

    Effective October 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Nicole Russo, Assistant Director, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2159.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-73, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.

    Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the pest risk analysis; (2) the comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or (3) changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk.

    In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23497, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0012), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk assessment (PRA) that evaluated the risks associated with the importation into the continental United States of fresh pitahaya fruit from Israel and a risk management document (RMD) prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the commodities to mitigate the pest risk.

    1 To view the notice, PRA, and RMD, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0012.

    We solicited comments on the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending on June 29, 2015. We did not receive any comments by that date.

    Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit from Israel into the continental United States subject to the following phytosanitary measures:

    • The pitahaya must be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only.

    • Each consignment of pitahaya must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Israel.

    • Each consignment of pitahaya is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry to the United States.

    These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In addition to these specific measures, fresh pitahaya fruit from Israel will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of October 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27097 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0042] Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, and Swine Vesicular Disease Status of Croatia AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adding Croatia to the lists of regions that are considered free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, and swine vesicular disease, and to the list of regions considered free or low risk for classical swine fever. We are taking this action because we have determined that this region is free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, and swine vesicular disease, and is low risk for classical swine fever. This action establishes the disease status of Croatia with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, swine vesicular disease, and classical swine fever while continuing to protect the United States from an introduction of those diseases.

    DATES:

    Effective November 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Donald Link, Import Risk Analyst, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7731; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including classical swine fever (CSF), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), rinderpest, and swine vesicular disease (SVD). The regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live ruminants and swine, and products from these animals, from regions where these diseases are considered to exist.

    Within part 94, § 94.1 contains requirements governing the importation of ruminants and swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists and the importation of the meat of any ruminants or swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists to prevent the introduction of either disease into the United States. We consider rinderpest and FMD to exist in all regions except those listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of that section as free of rinderpest and FMD. Section 94.9 contains requirements governing the importation of pork and pork products from regions where CSF exists. Section 94.10 contains importation requirements for swine from regions where CSF is considered to exist and designates the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-defined European CSF region as a single region of low-risk for CSF. Section 94.31 contains requirements governing the importation of pork, pork products, and swine from the APHIS-defined European CSF region. We consider CSF to exist in all regions of the world except those listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of § 94.9 as free of the disease.

    Section 94.11 of the regulations contains requirements governing the importation of meat of any ruminants or swine from regions that have been determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. Such regions are listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of that section.

    Section 94.12 of the regulations contains requirements governing the importation of pork or pork products from regions where SVD exists. We consider SVD to exist in all regions of the world except those listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of that section as free of SVD.

    Section 94.13 contains importation requirements governing the importation of pork or pork products from regions that have been declared free of SVD as provided in § 94.12(a) but supplement their national pork supply by the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of animals from regions where SVD is considered to exist, or have a common border with such regions, or have trade practices that are less restrictive than are acceptable to the United States. Such regions are listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of § 94.13.

    Section 94.14 states that no swine which are moved from or transit any region in which SVD is known to exist may be imported into the United States except wild swine imported in accordance with § 94.14(b).

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, § 92.2, contain requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region (as well as for the approval of the export of a particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region). If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request, APHIS believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a document published in the Federal Register.

    In accordance with that process, on February 3, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 5728-5729, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0042) a notice 1 announcing the availability for review and comment of our risk evaluation of the CSF, FMD, rinderpest, and SVD status of Croatia. Based on this evaluation, we determined that that the animal disease surveillance, prevention, and control measures implemented by Croatia are sufficient to minimize the likelihood of introducing CSF, FMD, rinderpest, and SVD into the United States via imports of species or products susceptible to these diseases.

    1 To view the notice of availability, risk evaluation, environmental assessment, and comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0042.

    In addition, we determined in our evaluation that Croatia is low risk for CSF and therefore eligible to be added to the APHIS-defined European CSF region. This region is subject to the conditions in § 94.31 for pork, pork products, and swine and § 98.38 for swine semen. We also determined that the provisions of § 94.11 for import conditions for meat or meat products from ruminants or swine from FMD-free regions, and § 94.13 for import conditions for pork or pork products from SVD-free regions, are applicable to Croatia.

    With respect to rinderpest, the global distribution of the disease has diminished significantly in recent years as a result of the Food and Agriculture Organization Global Rinderpest Eradication Program. The last known cases of rinderpest worldwide occurred in the southern part of the “Somali pastoral ecosystem” consisting of southern Somalia, eastern Kenya, and southern Ethiopia. In May 2011, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) announced its recognition of global rinderpest freedom.

    We solicited comments on the notice of availability for 60 days ending on April 6, 2015. We received two comments by that date, both from national pork industry associations. Both commenters raised specific concerns about disease risks regarding our proposed action to recognize Croatia as being free of FMD, rinderpest, and SVD, and low risk for CSF, as this action would allow for the importation into the United States of swine, pork, and pork products from Croatia subject to the regulations. The comments are discussed below.

    Smuggling of Prohibited Articles

    The commenters noted that international passenger traffic was identified in the APHIS evaluation as a key risk factor for the introduction of the disease hazards. The commenters stated that limited data exists to determine the quantity of prohibited products smuggled into Croatia and that APHIS obtained estimates of international passenger traffic from 2006 data that is no longer current. The commenters requested that we require Croatia to provide updated information on passenger traffic in order to determine if the risk evaluation needs to be modified.

    We agree with the commenter that limited data exists regarding smuggling of prohibited products into Croatia. Such data is by its nature limited because the intent of smuggling is to avoid disclosure, documentation, or inspection. We also acknowledge the volume of international passenger traffic into Croatia and agree that the introduction of prohibited products into Croatia could play a role in the transmission of animal diseases. As the commenters requested, we have provided more recent data for passenger traffic into Croatia.

    Data available from the World Bank indicates that 9,111,000, 9,927,000, and 10,369,000 international inbound tourists (overnight visitors) entered Croatia in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.2 Additional data published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 3 (see Table 1) indicates total inbound tourism and primary countries of origin for arriving passengers.

    2http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL. The data on inbound tourists refer to the number of arrivals, not to the number of people traveling. Thus a person who makes several trips to a country during a given period is counted each time as a new arrival.

    3 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014), “Croatia”, in OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2014, OECD Publishing. (Data cited by OECD was sourced from Croatian Bureau of Statistics data on tourism: http://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm.)

    Table 1—Inbound Tourism: Total Arrivals and Primary Countries of Origin, Croatia, 2008-2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Intl Arrivals (x1000) 8,665 8,694 9,111 9,927 10,369 Top Markets (x1000). Germany 1,405 1,463 1,525 1,661 1,853 Slovenia 985 963 1,017 1,100 1,054 Italy 1,009 1,058 1,018 1,150 1,051 Austria 692 776 810 892 946 Czech Republic 589 579 606 638 647

    While the above data indicates that Croatia has seen an increase in the number of international arrivals over the period indicated, the data does not change our conclusions in the risk evaluation. The updated number of arrivals does not differ substantially from the 2006 number we used in the risk evaluation. Additionally, the primary countries of origin listed in Table 1 for arriving passengers are other European Union (EU) Member States that APHIS recognizes to be free of FMD and rinderpest and low risk for CSF. Germany, Slovenia, Austria, and the Czech Republic are also free of SVD, as are several regions of Italy. We determined in the Croatia risk evaluation and previous swine disease status assessments of the EU and individual Member States that the animal health rules governing trade and travel between Member States mitigate the risk of contagious animal disease transmission through international passenger traffic.

    We conclude that the risk of virus introduction into Croatia via the pathway of intentionally smuggled or unintentionally carried prohibited products is effectively mitigated by implementing EU-level and Croatian national policies regarding commodities for personal consumption and by the interdiction efforts of Croatia's Border Veterinary Inspection and International Trade (BVIITS) and Customs departments. As described in the risk analysis, BVIITS and Customs are the Croatian authorities responsible for the inspection and confiscation and disposal of prohibited animal products at Croatia's points of entry. Furthermore, in addition to border controls, we determined in our risk assessment that Croatia has systems in place for surveillance and early detection of CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest should any of these diseases be introduced via incoming passenger traffic into Croatia or any other pathway.

    Disease Detection and Surveillance

    The commenters stated concerns over the ability of commercial swine operations in Croatia to conduct surveillance for and detect foreign animal diseases. As evidence, the commenters cited in the risk evaluation a reference to an interview we conducted with the operator of a company-owned swine fattening farm, in which the operator seemed more aware of potential production impacts than on the clinical signs that would accompany an outbreak of CSF or SVD. The commenters asked if APHIS is confident that the level of awareness of swine operations in Croatia is sufficient for early detection of trade-limiting foreign animal diseases of swine. They recommended that prior to announcing a decision on Croatia's disease status, we should require Croatia to provide us with verification that the industry has been provided with the training or educational materials necessary to assist in active disease surveillance.

    We reply that APHIS is confident in the level of awareness for swine diseases in Croatia's commercial swine operations. This particular commercial fattening farm represents Croatia's high intensity, high biosecurity, vertically integrated production and marketing system. Given the advanced swine husbandry standards, premises monitoring by company veterinarians, swine disease training, awareness and sampling, APHIS considers it highly likely that a trade-limiting swine disease in Croatia would be quickly detected and contained. Additionally, we consider Croatia's commercial swine production system to be the most likely source of pork or pork products for export to the United States, and consider the risk of undetected CSF-, FMD-, or SVD-contaminated products being sourced from this production chain to be low.

    Regarding this particular commercial farm and farm operator, despite the observation the commenters cited in the risk evaluation, the same farm operator seemed knowledgeable of farm operations, company procedures, and Croatian veterinary and legal requirements. As noted on page 43 of the risk evaluation, we also observed evidence of strong operational, biosecurity, and recordkeeping practices on that farm, as well as strong veterinary oversight. State veterinary authorities reported that the farm receives educational information distributed by Croatia's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Rural Development (MAFRD) and that company officials have attended swine disease symposia organized by the MAFRD Veterinary Directorate, which is the central competent authority for animal health and veterinary services in Croatia. In addition, a company veterinarian visits the premises every 2 weeks on average or when called to provide veterinary care. We also observed that the authorized veterinarian for this farm visits regularly to issue health certificates and movement documents.

    Overall, our Croatia risk evaluation determined that Croatia has an effective surveillance system in place for detection of swine diseases, including surveillance strategies for the commercial swine sector. We agree with the commenters that early disease detection is a core element of all trade-participating countries and we saw no evidence that Croatia was lacking in this regard.

    Small Farms and Backyard Premises

    The commenters noted that we considered the disease risk posed by the small, family-operated breeding farm we visited (and backyard premises in general) to be different from that of vertically integrated commercial swine production systems, particularly with respect to animal disease traceability, animal sampling, and biosecurity. The commenters recommended that, before making a decision on Croatia's disease status, we require Croatia to provide a plan for risk reduction for small farms and backyard premises that addresses improving pre-harvest traceability, disease and biosecurity awareness, and disease sampling strategies that aid in early detection of trade-limiting foreign animal diseases.

    In reply, we do consider the disease risk posed by small family-operated breeding farms and backyard premises to differ from the risk associated with Croatia's vertically integrated commercial swine production systems. However, we also observed measures that mitigate the risks associated with the small family-operated breeding farm we visited, including satisfactory operational, husbandry, and biosecurity standards. The farm controlled and catalogued on- and off-farm movements of animals, people, and supplies, and satisfied animal disease traceability requirements. Additionally, this farm was included in Croatia's swine disease surveillance program, as are other small farms in Croatia.

    Regarding risk reduction plans, we note that Croatia does have such a plan in place for CSF in the form of legislation that places additional restrictions on swine, pork, and pork products produced in or moving from the counties of Vukovar-Srijem, Sisak-Moslavina, Karlovac, and Brod-Posavina, which are considered higher risk for CSF due to past serological events for CSF in feral swine. The family-operated breeding farm visited by APHIS was in Karlovac County and thus subject to these additional restrictions. As noted in the risk evaluation,4 the additional risk reduction measures include specific biosecurity requirements such as cleaning and disinfection of vehicles and equipment. Additional measures also require that domestic swine from premises situated in the higher-risk counties can be marketed within Croatia if they undergo clinical examination and sampling procedures prior to movement from the premises of origin. The swine must also test negative for CSF within the 7 days prior to movement, and no swine must have been introduced to the premises within 30 days prior to movement. Domestic swine from higher-risk counties must be accompanied by a health certificate that includes the number of swine, place of origin, date of clinical examination, and disease sampling and diagnostic test results.

    4 Section 4, “Active Disease Control Programs,” page 19.

    The additional risk reduction measures stipulate that fresh meat, meat preparations, or meat products consisting of or containing meat of swine originating from premises in Karlovac, Vukovar-Srijem, and Sisak-Moslavina Counties may be marketed and sold outside of these counties only if no evidence of CSF has been recorded in the previous 12 months on the premises and the premises is located outside a protection or surveillance zone. The swine are required to have resided for at least 90 days on the premises, and no swine are permitted to have been introduced into the premises within the previous 30 days before dispatch to slaughter. Under the additional risk reduction measures, Croatia also requires each premises to be inspected by an authorized veterinarian, including appropriate clinical examination and sampling of animals, twice per year. If swine are moved directly to slaughter, the animals are required to be clinically examined and sampled by an authorized veterinarian, culminating in a signed health certificate. Finally, the additional restrictions prevent semen, ova, and embryos from swine from these higher-risk counties from being marketed outside of those counties.

    Animal Movement Safeguards

    The commenters stated concern about the movement of swine within Croatia, noting that swine can be kept in livestock markets for no more than 12 hours and must be returned to the premises if not sold in that time. The commenters noted that commingling of swine outside of a production system or premises of origin at a market presents an elevated risk of disease transmission. For this reason, the commenters asked APHIS to clarify what, if any, regulations apply to reporting that animal movement back to the premises of origin and if there are any quarantine or movement restrictions or disease monitoring placed on that animal. The commenters recommended that APHIS ensure that reporting takes place for animal movement back to the premises of origin, that there are quarantine or movement restrictions as necessary, and that official monitoring for disease be in place and verified by Croatia.

    We agree with the commenters that commingling of potentially infected but undetected swine in markets could contribute to rapid transmission and spread of contagious swine diseases. We acknowledged on page 46 of our risk evaluation that backyard premises with a single pig are exempt from most of Croatia's premises and animal registration requirements and that this presents a gap in animal disease traceability. We also acknowledged that backyard premises may present a biosecurity gap as some may not always conduct animal disease sampling or collect, analyze, and respond to changes in production data.

    However, we consider it unlikely that animals/products from small farms or backyard premises will enter the export chain, as the movement and marketing patterns of Croatia's small farms and family premises are local and domestic in scope. Additionally, we concluded from our risk evaluation that the risk of disease transmission in small farm and backyard premises is mitigated at the premises and market levels. Although these premises are exempt from entry in the Croatian Agricultural Agency's Farm Register database, they must report the purchase of any pig to the competent veterinary organization at the time of delivery. Moreover, as the pig is most likely fed and fattened for personal consumption, we consider it unlikely that the pig would be moved off of a single- or double-swine backyard premises. Any swine that do move from a small premises require a movement permit and corresponding health certificate, and would most likely enter the local livestock market and be subject to the regulations enforced there. Livestock market regulations include the requirement that each animal consignment arriving to the market must be accompanied by a veterinary health certificate, issued within 30 days prior to movement, indicating veterinary inspection was performed prior to animals leaving the premises, as well as a travel document indicating that the transport vehicle underwent cleaning and disinfection.

    Finally, the risk associated with an infected animal arriving at an animal market and being sent back to the premises of origin is also mitigated by veterinary inspection and corresponding documentation prior to animals moving to the market, as well as by the requirement that transport vehicles be disinfected.

    Disease risk is further mitigated by other control measures that can be implemented in the event that a contagious animal disease is suspected or confirmed. The measures we observed included disinfection wheelbaths for vehicles and footbaths for people, and requiring that employees don personal protective clothing prior to entering the sale and transfer part of the market. Animal disease awareness educational pamphlets and contingency plans were on display in the market office, and the market has participated in disease outbreak simulation exercises.

    Overall, we determined that Croatia has a sufficient infrastructure in place for reporting movement of pigs, including livestock markets, and concluded that disease monitoring took place at all critical points of Croatia's movement and marketing channels.

    Surveillance for African Swine Fever

    The commenters noted that Croatia conducts active surveillance for CSF, SVD, and FMD. However, they asked if we could determine whether active or passive surveillance is conducted for African swine fever (ASF), and whether the veterinary authority in Croatia rules out ASF in swine that present for inspection with case-compatible lesions.

    We do not currently consider Croatia affected with ASF and did not conduct an evaluation of Croatia's ASF status. Thus, as the commenters acknowledged, passive and active surveillance for ASF are not specifically related to the risk assessment, which was conducted specifically for CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest. However, we did conclude that Croatia maintains effective CSF and FMD emergency response plans, so if a disease investigation was triggered by case-compatible lesions we consider it highly likely that ASF would be appropriately confirmed or ruled out by Croatian veterinary officials.

    We acknowledge that ASF has been a concern in the EU and in areas adjacent to the EU. The EU has laid down prevention and control measures 5 to be applied where ASF is suspected or confirmed, either in agricultural establishments or in wild boars. As an EU Member State, Croatia is required to implement EU-mandated prevention and control measures for all swine diseases, including ASF. APHIS continues to monitor the ASF situation in the EU, and Croatia would be subject to any restrictive action that APHIS takes towards the EU or individual Member States to mitigate the risk of introduction of ASF.

    5http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:02002L0060-20080903:EN:NOT.

    CSF Testing Methods

    The commenters stated that the methods of investigation and testing in Croatia for suspected cases of CSF included in the risk evaluation appear to be inconsistent with the laboratory methods conducted in the United States that ensure rapid detection of CSF from samples submitted from a farm. The commenters suggested that this inconsistency could result in a significant delay in confirming the presence of CSF on farms in Croatia with case-compatible lesions and recommended that the competent veterinary authority of Croatia be required to improve laboratory detection methods so they are equivalent to those used in the United States.

    Under OIE guidelines, APHIS import risk analyses are required to assess whether the end result of a sanitary measure or standard, in this case CSF detection methodology and disease confirmation, is equivalent to the end result of the importing country's measure or standard. While Croatia's CSF investigation and testing procedures may diverge slightly from U.S. protocols, we concluded from information gathered during the site visit that Croatia's CSF diagnostic testing protocols are in accordance with international standards and their end result would be rapid detection of CSF. We determined that Croatia's laboratory system was capable of quickly and accurately receiving, processing, and completing diagnostic tests on samples received. We also determined that these labs were able to accurately diagnose CSF, FMD, and SVD, distinguish them from differential diagnoses, and quickly communicate test results to the Croatian Veterinary Directorate and back to the field. Finally, we determined that Croatia's epidemiological investigations will capably trigger an appropriate surveillance response that would result in timely and accurate diagnosis of CSF.

    Contaminated Food Waste

    The commenters questioned our determination that contaminated food waste from Croatia poses a low disease risk to swine in the United States, noting that the risk findings we cited to help support this determination were conducted in 1995 and 2001 and do not reflect current risks to the U.S. pork industry.

    One risk the commenters cited was the increased interstate trade of swine from States that allow the regulated feeding of garbage. The commenters recommended that the 1995 assessment be repeated using more recent data.

    To the commenter's point, if contaminated meat products were imported from Croatia and managed to make it into plate waste, U.S. garbage feeding regulations will mitigate that risk. In 1995, we conducted a pathway analysis to estimate the likelihood of exposing domestic swine to infected waste. With 95 percent confidence, we estimated that 0.023 percent or less of plate and manufacturing waste would be inadequately processed prior to feeding to swine. Based on this percentage, less than 1 part in 4,300 of imported beef fed to swine as plate or manufacturing waste is likely to be inadequately cooked. The findings of a 2001 APHIS survey, which showed a substantial reduction in waste-feeding operations, further indicated that the risk of FMD exposure via feeding of contaminated waste to swine was continuing to decline.

    Treatment of food waste to be fed to swine is covered under the Swine Health Protection Act 6 (SHPA) regulations in 9 CFR part 166 and supported by APHIS' Veterinary Service (VS) Swine Health Program (SHP). Under the regulations, waste feeder operations must be licensed and regularly inspected by APHIS inspectors. In addition to other safeguards, the licensing process requires that producers adequately cook the waste fed to swine using methods designed to destroy foreign animal disease agents.

    6 7 U.S.C. 3801.

    We acknowledge that waste feeding continues to be a potential pathway for transmission of swine diseases and that interstate trade patterns are subject to change. We maintain, however, that the 1995 and 2001 risk findings, combined with existing SHPA requirements, indicate to us a low likelihood of exposure of domestic swine to CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest from food waste originating from Croatia.

    Verification of Garbage Heating Requirements

    The commenters noted that the SHPA requires licensed facilities to have quarterly or bi-yearly temperature checks of garbage-cooking equipment for a minimum of two and a maximum of four temperature checks each fiscal year. The commenters asked how many of the licensed garbage feeders actually were temperature checked twice in 2014 by a regulatory official. They indicated concerns with the records licensed facilities maintain to verify that they are meeting cooking time and temperature requirements on days they are not inspected, and recommended that we determine what records licensed facilities maintain in order to provide such verification to State and Federal animal health officials.

    While we require that licensed U.S. garbage-feeding facilities observe all garbage heating requirements under the SHPA regulations, cooking temperature and treatment requirements are outside the scope of this risk evaluation. Regulations addressing these practices are contained in 9 CFR part 166 and include provisions for inspection of heating equipment and records. Garbage-feeding facilities suspected of violating the regulations for storing and heating garbage for feeding are subject to license suspension or revocation.

    Unlicensed Garbage Feeders

    The commenters presented data from APHIS-VS reports to the U.S. Animal Health Association's Transmissible Diseases of Swine Committee indicating that, from 2009 to 2013, the number of non-licensed garbage feeders found by State and Federal animal health authorities in searches for non-licensed feeders was 104, 142, 68, 125, and 160, respectively. The commenters asked if APHIS has any supporting information on estimates of the number of unlicensed garbage-feeding facilities. Citing the disease risk posed by unlicensed garbage-feeding operations, the commenters expressed concern with our level of confidence that foreign animal diseases can be detected promptly in unlicensed garbage-feeding operations and asked if our emphasis on finding non-licensed feeders increased or decreased over the past couple of years. Procedures for the handling, processing, and feeding of food waste to swine in the United States are subject to our swine health protection regulations in 9 CFR part 166. Compliance with the regulations has improved in recent years, thereby reducing the probability of survival of FMD virus in the food waste. Searches for non-licensed garbage feeding facilities are regularly conducted using several different techniques as part of the duties of APHIS animal health staff, as well as State animal health and other State agency staff. During fiscal year 2014, animal health and other inspectors conducted 28,774 searches for non-licensed garbage feeding facilities with 122 documented non-licensed facilities identified, which indicates that unlicensed activity is infrequent.

    When unlicensed garbage feeding facilities are identified, the unauthorized activity is documented, and the facility is brought into compliance. Depending on the State, all swine on such premises may be quarantined and tested for foreign animal diseases. Information on the number of inspections conducted to detect unlicensed garbage feeding facilities, the number of unlicensed facilities identified, and resolution of cases resulting from such identification are captured at the State level and evaluated by APHIS on a regular basis. Given the regular monitoring of these facilities and their relatively small number, we stand by the conclusions we reached in our 1995 risk analysis cited above.

    SHPA Budget

    The commenters stated a concern that budget cuts to APHIS-VS and State animal health officials have negatively affected the ability to effectively carry out the regulatory activities supporting the SHPA. They also expressed concern that the reduction in such activities has reduced the number of inspection and searches for unlicensed garbage-feeding operations to a level that is lower than what was indicated in the 1995 risk analysis.

    Budget cuts to APHIS have necessitated a reordering of priorities in relation to SHPA-related activities. We have deemphasized or passed on to State partners or other cooperators lower-yield activities, such as visiting restaurants to inquire about garbage-disposal methods, in favor of allowing inspectors to spend more time interacting with and educating swine producers and conducting inspections. The regular presence of APHIS inspectors in U.S. garbage feeding facilities provides opportunities to educate operators on disease signs and reporting requirements and to conduct direct observation of animals for signs of illness. APHIS believes, therefore, that the presence of animal products infected with FMD or other reportable conditions entering the United States would be detected more quickly in these types of premises than in other, unregulated premises.

    Environmental Assessment

    The commenters noted that the environmental assessment (EA) provided with this rulemaking was the May 2011 EA for the importation of swine and swine commodities from Slovakia. They also noted that APHIS provided a supporting document that was an amended finding of no significant impact (FONSI) from importation of swine and swine commodities from Croatia that uses the EA from Slovakia as the basis for the amended finding related to Croatia. The commenters requested that APHIS expand on how it is justifiable to use an EA prepared for other countries and apply it to Croatia.

    APHIS has conducted animal health status evaluations for multiple EU Member States for swine diseases. Since 2006 we have recognized the CSF, FMD, SVD, and/or rinderpest status for EU Member States Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Hungary, and for certain countries that have entered into agricultural equivalence agreements with the EU. In each case, we determined that measures are in place to mitigate the risk of CSF, SVD, FMD, and/or rinderpest introduction into the United States through importation of swine, swine commodities, ruminants, and ruminant commodities from countries or regions that we recognize as low risk for CSF and free of SVD, FMD, and rinderpest.

    Given that the EU applies and ensures enforcement of the same disease mitigation requirements across all EU Member States, we recognized that the single-state evaluations we were conducting were redundant and thus unnecessary with respect to meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). After we consulted with Agency specialists on NEPA, we did an environmental impact analysis comparison of the 2011 Slovakia EA analysis in regards to the proposed action of this notice for the EU Member State Croatia and determined that the environmental analyses of the Slovakia EA were similar and sufficient to cover the proposed action for Croatia. The 2011 Slovakia EA stated that for any like/similar future regionalization actions proposed for EU Member States, APHIS would incorporate the Slovakia EA by reference in a new FONSI issued for a proposed new action for an EU Member State. That is what we have done for this proposed action for Croatia.

    Additionally, we determined that future proposed actions of this nature pose negligible environmental impacts to each EU Member State or country that has entered into an agricultural equivalency agreement with the EU, provided that a disease assessment finds them to be free of or a low risk for relevant diseases. As Croatia is an EU Member State and because we have determined that Croatia is free of SVD, FMD, and rinderpest, and at low risk for CSF, we believe that the “like/similar action” environmental analyses approach as presented in the 2011 Slovakia EA/FONSI is appropriate to use for the proposed action for Croatia.

    Based on the evaluation and the reasons given in this document in response to comments, we are recognizing Croatia as free of FMD, rinderpest, and SVD, and low risk for CSF. The lists of regions recognized as free or at low risk of these diseases can be found by visiting the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport and following the link to “Animal or Animal Product.” Copies of the lists are also available via postal mail, fax, or email upon request to the Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, Maryland 20737.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of October 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27092 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-928] Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) preliminarily determines that uncovered innerspring units (“innersprings units”) completed or assembled in Malaysia by Goldon Bedding Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. (“Goldon”) using components from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), and exported to the United States, are circumventing the antidumping duty order on innersprings from the PRC, as provided in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).1

    1See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 7661 (February 19, 2009) (“Order”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Pulongbarit, 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) 482-4031.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 31, 2014, the Department initiated an anticircumvention inquiry on imports of innersprings from the PRC exported by Goldon.2 On January 12, 2015, the Department issued a circumvention inquiry questionnaire.3 On January 22, 2015, we placed information on the record confirming Goldon's receipt of the questionnaire.4 The Department has, to date, not received any responses to our requests for information from Goldon.

    2See Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 78792 (December 31, 2014) (“Initiation”).

    3See Letter from the Department, to Goldon, regarding “Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Circumvention Inquiry Questionnaire,” dated January 12, 2015 (“Circumvention Questionnaire”).

    4See Memo to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office V, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office V, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, regarding “Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Anticircumvention Inquiry Questionnaire: Documentation to Confirm Goldon's Receipt of the Questionnaire,” dated January 22, 2015.

    Because Goldon failed to respond to the questionnaire, the record does not contain complete information regarding the factors set forth in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”). Accordingly, we have based our determination on facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, applying an adverse inference, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.5

    5 For more information, see Department Memorandum, “Anticircumvention Inquiry Regarding the Antidumping Duty Order on Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination Decision Memorandum for Goldon Bedding Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd.,” dated concurrently with these results (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”).

    Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units. The product is currently classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and has also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6

    6See Preliminary Decision Memorandum for a complete description of the scope of the Order.

    Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry

    The products covered by this inquiry are innerspring units, as described above, that are manufactured in Malaysia by Goldon with PRC-origin components and other direct materials, such as helical wires, and that are subsequently exported from Malaysia to the United States.

    Methodology

    The Department has conducted this preliminary determination of circumvention in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(h). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 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, the signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention

    As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department preliminarily determines, based on facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, that innerspring units completed and assembled in Malaysia by Goldon using components from the PRC and exported from Malaysia to the United States are circumventing the Order. Moreover, because we are unable to distinguish between those innerspring units that Goldon is exporting to the United States which contain PRC-origin components and those that do not, the Department has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of innerspring units from Malaysia produced by Goldon as subject to the Order.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), the Department will direct CBP to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the rate applicable to the exporter, on all unliquidated entries of innerspring units produced by Goldon that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 22, 2014, the date of initiation of the anticircumvention inquiry.

    Should the Department conduct an administrative review in the future, and determine in the context of that review that Goldon did not produce for export innerspring units using PRC-origin innerspring components, the Department will consider initiating a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act to determine if the continued suspension of all innerspring units produced by Goldon is warranted.7

    7See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47554 (August 5, 2011).

    Notification to the International Trade Commission

    The Department, consistent with section 781(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7)(i)(B), has notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of this preliminary determination to include the merchandise subject to this anticircumvention inquiry within the Order. Pursuant to section 781(e)(2) of the Act, the ITC may request consultations concerning the Department's proposed inclusion of the subject merchandise. If, after consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, it will have 15 days to provide written advice to the Department.8

    8See section 781(e)(2) of the Act.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs within 15 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal Register. Rebuttals to case briefs, which are limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities. Parties submitting briefs should do so using the Department's electronic filing system, ACCESS.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.9 Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues parties intend to present at the hearing. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Prior to the date of the hearing, the Department will contact all parties that submitted case or rebuttal brief to determine if they wish to participate in the hearing. The Department will then distribute a hearing schedule to the parties prior to the hearing and only those parties listed on the schedule may present issues raised in their briefs.

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 781(f) of the Act, the final determination with respect to this anticircumvention inquiry, including the results of the Department's analysis of any written comments, will be issued no later than December 2, 2015, unless extended.

    This preliminary affirmative circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27089 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE264 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) 634-2000; fax: (774) 634-2001.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The committee will receive a progress report and provide guidance to the Plan Development Team on the development of an example Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP). This meeting will focus on the FEP components, strawman goals and objectives and a summary of how various ecosystem models address FEP data needs. The Committee will also formulate comments on NOAA Fisheries Draft Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy (http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/2_Draft-EBFM-Policy-9.9.2015-for-release.pdf). Final comments on the Draft Policy will be approved at the December 2015 Council meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27005 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE253 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC's) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC's) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday November 17, 2015, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place over webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on how to connect to the webinar by computer and by telephone will be available at:http://www.mafmc.org.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; Web site: www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel, together with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Advisory Panel, will meet on Tuesday November 17, 2015 (see DATES and ADDRESSES). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss management measures (e.g. bag limits, size limits, and seasons) for recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries in 2016.

    A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's Web site (www.mafmc.org) prior to the meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27004 Filed 10-22-15; 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: Socioeconomics of Guided Wildlife Viewing Operations in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS).

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 56.

    Average Hours per Response: 2.5 hours.

    Burden Hours: 140.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a new information collection.

    NOAA is mentoring student interns from the Monterey Institute for International Studies to estimate the market and non-market economic values associated with non-consumptive recreation uses (e.g. whale watching, other wildlife observation, SCUBA diving, snorkeling, beach activities, surfing, wind-surfing, kite boarding, paddle boarding, etc.) in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) for those accessing the MBNMS via “for hire” operation boats.

    We will conduct surveys of the for hire operations that take people out for non-consumptive recreation, to obtain total use by type of activity and the spatial use by type of activity. Information will also be obtained on costs-and-earnings of the operations, knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of sanctuary management strategies and regulations, and demographic information on owner/captains and crews. Surveys will also be conducted of the passengers aboard the for hire operation boats to obtain their market and non-market economic use values for non-consumptive recreation use and how those value change with changes in natural resource attribute conditions and user characteristics. Additional information will be obtained on importance-satisfaction ratings of key natural resource attributes, facilities and services, knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of management strategies and regulations, and demographic profiles of passengers.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    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 20, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26975 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE265 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Hearings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will hold a series of public hearings pertaining to Regulatory Amendment 25 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic and Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic. Regulatory Amendment 25 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addresses management measures for blueline tilefish, yellowtail snapper and black sea bass. Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP addresses a commercial trip limit for the dolphin fishery in the Atlantic.

    DATES:

    The public hearings will be held via webinar with listening/comment stations from November 9-12, 2015. A webinar with listening/comment stations will be held November 9, 2015 for Regulatory Amendment 25. A webinar with listening/comment stations will be held November 12, 2015 for both Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 25 and Dolphin Wahoo Regulatory Amendment 1.

    The public hearings will be conducted via webinar and accessible via the internet from the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net. The hearings will begin at 6 p.m. Registration for each webinar is required. Registration information will be posted on the SAFMC Web site at www.safmc.net as it becomes available. Webinar registrants may test/confirm their computer set up for the webinar one hour prior to each hearing and contact Mike Collins at (843) 763-1050 to address any questions regarding webinar setup. Local listening/comment stations will be provided at the following locations:

    ADDRESSES:

    Public Hearings for Regulatory Amendment 25 to the Snapper Grouper FMP:

    1. November 9, 2015—Local Listening/Comment Stations: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31520-8687; phone: (912) 264-7218 and Hilton Garden Inn Charleston Airport, 5265 International Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; phone: (843) 308-9330.

    2. November 12, 2015—Local Listening/Comment Station: Dare County Government Complex, Room 168, 1st Floor, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive, Manteo, NC 27954; phone: (252) 475-5000; and Wingate by Wyndham (Hotel), 2465 State Route 16, St. Augustine, FL 32092; phone: (904) 824-9229.

    Public Hearing for Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP

    1. November 12, 2015—Local Listening/Comment Station: Dare County Government Complex, Room 168, 1st Floor, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive, Manteo, NC 27954; phone: (252) 475-5000; and Wingate by Wyndham (Hotel), 2465 State Route 16, St. Augustine, FL 32092; phone: (904) 824-9229.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Amendment 25 to the Snapper Grouper FMP

    This amendment includes alternatives to:

    (1) For blueline tilefish, specify the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for the South Atlantic, adjust Annual Catch Limit (ACL), Optimum Yield (OY) and other management parameters as necessary based on the new ABC; revise the commercial trip limit; and modify the recreational bag limit;

    (2) Modify the recreational and commercial fishing year and commercial Accountability Measures for yellowtail snapper; and

    (3) Increase the recreational bag limit for black sea bass.

    Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP

    This amendment includes management alternatives to:

    (1) Establish a commercial trip limit for dolphin.

    Written comments may be directed to Bob Mahood, Executive Director, SAFMC (see Council address) or via email to: [email protected] Note that email comments should specify “Snapper Grouper Reg Amendment 25” or “Dolphin Wahoo Reg Amend 1” in the Subject Line of the email according to the comment being submitted. Public hearing comments for both Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 25 and Dolphin Wahoo Regulatory Amendment 1 will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on November 16, 2015. Copies of the public hearing documents for each amendment will be posted on the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net when they become available.

    During the webinars, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council. Area Council representatives will be present at the local comment stations.

    Special Accommodations

    These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27006 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Fishery Management Council; Online Webinar AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of online webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold an online webinar to review a revised west coast limited entry trawl individual fishing quota (IFQ) projection model developed by the Pacific Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT). The online SSC webinar is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The SSC webinar will commence at noon PST, Monday, November 9, 2015 and continue until 2 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the SSC webinar, please join online at http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar and enter the webinar ID: 148-230-579, as well as your name and email address. Once you have joined the webinar, call the toll number 1 (914) 614-3221 and enter 117-723-807 when prompted for the audio access code. Then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback (see http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/PFMC_Audio_Diagram_GoToMeeting.pdf for best practices). System requirements for PC-based attendees: Windows 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac-based attendees: Mac OS X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile attendees: iPhone, iPad, Android phone, or Android tablet (see the GoToMeeting Webinar Apps). If you experience technical difficulties and would like assistance, please contact Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280, extension 425. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific objectives of the SSC webinar are to review revisions to the GMT's west coast limited entry trawl IFQ projection model to ensure the changes recommended by the SSC's Groundfish and Economics Subcommittees in June were implemented and the model behaves as expected. During the webinar, the SSC will consider endorsing the GMT's IFQ model to inform management decisions. No management actions will be decided in this webinar. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the SSC chair.

    Although non-emergency issues not identified in the webinar agenda may come before the webinar participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this webinar. Formal action at the webinar will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the webinar participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station at the Pacific Council office is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the webinar date.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27007 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE270 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow commercial fishing vessels to fish outside of the limited access sea scallop regulations in support of study investigating coastal spawning of winter flounder in Southern New England.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “DA15-063 CFF SNE Essential Fish Habitat Study EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “DA15-063 CFF SNE Essential Fish Habitat Study EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NOAA has awarded the Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) a grant through the 2015 Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program, in support of a project titled “Investigating Offshore Essential Fish Habitat of Southern New England Winter Flounder.” To conduct this research, CFF submitted a complete application for an EFP on August 4, 2015. The applicant proposes to investigate questions associated with spawning winter flounder in Southern New England (SNE) by conducting multiple research activities, which include:

    1. A paired scallop dredge survey to identify and monitor the distribution of winter flounder;

    2. Test dredge gear twine top configurations and apron lengths to reduce finfish bycatch;

    3. Attempt to observe winter flounder spawning behavior using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV);

    4. Conduct a benthic habitat video survey; and

    5. Sample for a winter flounder eggs using a plankton net.

    CFF is requesting exemptions that would allow commercial fishing vessels be exempt from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); Atlantic sea scallop observer program requirements at § 648.11(g); and possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for sampling purposes only. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Five vessels would conduct the dredge survey and gear testing on six 5-day trips, for 30 total DAS. Each trip would complete approximately 60 dredge tows per trip for an overall total of 360 tows for the project. The project would also conduct a single video survey trip utilizing a benthic sled. Trips would take place in the open areas of SNE in December 2015-May 2016.

    All dredge tows would use two 15-foot (4.57-m) Turtle Deflector Dredges (TDD) and be conducted in tandem for a duration of 30 minutes at a tow speed of approximately 4.8 knots. One dredge would be rigged with a 7-row apron and 60-mesh wide twine top while the other dredge would be rigged with a 5-row apron and 45-mesh wide twine top. To examine factors that may influence flatfish bycatch rates such as habitat characteristics and fish behavior in response to the TDD, each dredge would have an underwater camera attached to the bale bar. When researchers identify large numbers of spawning winter flounder during the dredge survey, they would deploy the ROV to film spawning behavior interactions.

    For all tows, researchers would count and weigh sea scallop catch. Researchers would measure scallops from one randomly selected basket from each dredge in 5-mm increments to determine size selectivity. Researchers would sort finfish catch by species then count, weigh, and measure finfish catch in 1-mm increments. Researchers would also weigh, sex, and assess the reproductive stage of all winter flounder greater than 32 cm. The vessels would not retain catch for longer than needed to conduct sampling and vessels would not land any catch for sale. CFF researchers would accompany all trips, and be in charge of sampling activities.

    Project Catch Estimates Species lb kg Scallops 21,000 9,525 Yellowtail 500 227 Winter Flounder 1,500 680 Windowpane Flounder 2,600 1,179 Monkfish 8,000 3,629 Barndoor Skate 500 227 NE Skate Complex 50,000 22,680 Other Fish 1,500 680

    The project would also use a commercial vessel for a single dedicated video trip utilizing a benthic underwater survey sled. At each of the survey stations the benthic sled would be deployed and towed for 5-10 minutes at a speed of 1.5-2 knots. Researchers would attach a live feed video camera transmitting video back to the vessel, and two underwater cameras taking high definition still shots to the benthic sled. There would also be two low level lights attached to the benthic sled in order to illuminate the area for the cameras. The video footage and photos from the benthic sled survey would be compared to still shots take during the dredge surveys. Researchers would also attach a plankton net to the benthic sled. The plankton net would be 101.60 cm long with a 27.94 x 45.72-cm opening, and a mesh size of 0.05 cm. The plankton net would allow researchers to see if there are winter flounder eggs present at each of the survey stations.

    CFF has requested these exemptions to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel and possession waivers will enable them to conduct finfish sampling activities. NMFS would waive observer notification requirements because the research activity is not representative of a commercial scallop fishing trip.

    If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27003 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE230 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Horseshoe Crabs; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit, 2015; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notification of a proposal to conduct exempted fishing; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This action reopens the comment period for an application for an exempted fishing permit for horseshoe crab that published on October 7, 2015. The original comment period closed 13 days later on October 19, 2015, which is two days shorter than the 15-day minimum comment time period required in our regulations. We are therefore reopening the comment period through October 27, 2015, to make-up for this shortfall and to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal.”

    Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 713-0596. Comments on this notice may also be submitted by email to: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following document identifier: “Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal Comments.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Derek Orner, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 427-8567.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A notification of a proposal to conduct exempted fishing was published on October 7, 2015 (80 FR 60633) that would allow the harvest of up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs from the Carl N. Schuster Jr. Horseshoe Crab Reserve for biomedical purposes and require, as a condition of the exempted fishing permit (EFP), the collection of data related to the status of horseshoe crabs within the reserve. The Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application submitted by Limuli Laboratories of Cape May Court House, NJ, contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.

    The notification of EFP application published in the Federal Register with a 13-day comment period that closed on October 19, 2015. Due to a clerical oversight, NMFS provided the public with a 13-day comment period instead of the 15-day comment period required by our regulations at 50 CFR 600.745. As a result, NMFS is extending the comment period to allow for additional time for public comment for interested parties to provide comment on this activity. Thus, NMFS is reopening the comment period through October 27, 2015.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26897 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0043] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Bureau Service Delivery.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before November 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Bureau Service Delivery.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0024.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individual or Households; State, Local, or Tribal Governments; and Private Sector.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,875.

    Abstract: This generic information collection plan provides for the collection of qualitative feedback from consumers, financial institutions, and stakeholders on a wide range of services the Bureau provides in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Bureau's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, the Bureau means information that provides useful insights on, for example, comprehension, usability, perceptions, and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. The Bureau expects this feedback to include insights into consumer, financial institution, or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Bureau and consumers, financial institutions, and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    This submission is requesting OMB to renewal for additional three (3) years its approval of this generic information collection plan.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on June 15, 2015 (80 FR 34148). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27079 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0044] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing a new information collection for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval titled, “Owning a Home Evaluation Study.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before November 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Owning a Home Evaluation Study.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX (Will be assigned upon OMB approval).

    Type of Review: New Collection (Request for a new OMB control number).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 170,200.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,480.

    Abstract: The Dodd Frank Act directs the Bureau to develop a program of consumer education and engagement. As part of that program, the Bureau has developed a suite of online tools and resources, known as the Owning a Home project, to help consumers make better, more informed decisions about mortgages. The purpose of this information collection is to learn about the behavioral mechanisms and evaluate the hypotheses underlying the Owning a Home project. This information collection is structured as a randomized-controlled trial field study.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57892). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27078 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, and the impact of the requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its recordkeeping requirement in 45 CFR 2540.205 and 2540.206. CNCS grantees and subgrantees must maintain records to document completion of required National Service Criminal History Checks. This is not a notice of proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Aaron Olszewski, Office of General Counsel; 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) By fax to: (202) 606-3467, Attention: Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (4) Electronically, through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aaron Olszewski, 202-606-6670, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is not a notice of proposed rulemaking. CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

    Background

    Section 189D of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, requires CNCS grantees and subgrantees to conduct a National Service Criminal History Check on individuals in covered positions. Documenting compliance with the requirement is critical to that responsibility.

    Current Action

    CNCS requests renewal of the previous approval.

    The requirements will be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on February 29, 2016.

    Type of Review: Renewal of Approved Recordkeeping Requirement.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: National Service Criminal History Check Recordkeeping Requirement.

    OMB Number: 3045-0145.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: CNCS Grantees and Subgrantees.

    Total Respondents: 112,357.

    Frequency: Three times per covered position.

    Average Time per Response: Five minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 28,089 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Jeremy Joseph, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26996 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, November 6, 2015. The Public Session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, VA 22203. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 693-3849. Web site: http://jpp.whs.mil.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of November 6, 2015, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In Section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will hear about a recently completed assessment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice conducted by the Military Justice Review group. It will also continue its review of military justice data for sexual assault crimes and comparative sentencing schemes and continue deliberations on issues relating to retaliation against individuals who report incidents of sexual assault within the military. The Panel is interested in written and oral comments from the public, including non-governmental organizations, relevant to these issues or any of the Panel's tasks.

    Agenda • 9:00-10:15 Overview of Issues Examined by the Military Justice Review Group • 10:30-11:30 Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office Overview of Statistics from Annual Reports to Congress • 11:30-12:00 Staff Presentation: Research and Methodology Used to Obtain and Analyze Information about the Military's Adjudication of Sexual Assault Crimes • 12:00-1:00 Lunch • 1:00-2:00 Staff Presentation: Descriptive Overview of Sexual Assault Case Outcomes and Comparative Data • 2:00-3:00 Panel Discussion: Identifying Focus Areas for Further Examination Regarding Military Sexual Assault Adjudications • 3:00-4:30 Deliberations: Retaliation Against Victims of Sexual Assault • 4:30-4:45 Public Comment

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the November 6, 2015 public meeting agenda or any updates or changes to the agenda, to include individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the JPP at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement must be submitted along with a request to provide an oral statement. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. on November 6, 2015 in front of the Panel members. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public on a first-come basis. After reviewing the requests for oral presentation, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer will, if they determine the statement to be relevant to the Panel's mission, allot five minutes to persons desiring to make an oral presentation.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer: The Panel's Designated Federal Officer is Ms. Maria Fried, Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Morgan F. Park, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27055 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0101] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter an existing System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter an existing system of records, DPR 32, entitled “Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Ombudsman and Outreach Programs” to record information related to the mediation of disputes and answering of inquiries related to the USERRA; by tracking case assignments and mediation results of potential conflicts between employers and the National Guard, Reserves, or NDMS members they employ; and by reporting statistics related to the Ombudsman Program in aggregate and at the state committee-level. These records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before November 23, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571)372-0461.

    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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at http://dpcld.defense.gov/. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 27, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on 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 20, 2015. Morgan F. Park, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DPR 32 System name:

    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Ombudsman and Outreach Programs (November 14, 2007, 72 FR 64058).

    Changes: System Identifier:

    Delete entry and replace with “DHRA 16.”

    System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Inquiry and Case Management System (ICMS).”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Computing Directorate Mechanicsburg, 5450 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2411.

    Backup: Iron Mountain, 1665 S 5350 W., Salt Lake City, UT 84104-4721.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Members of the National Guard, Reserves, and National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) who submit inquiries or request mediation; Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) employees; civilian employers; contractors and volunteers who handle inquiries and cases; and those who submit inquiries.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual's full name, home address, phone number, email address; current Uniformed Service and Service member pay grade; ESGR case number; type of Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) issue; employer name, employer type, employer's contact name, contact phone, email and address; name, email and state committee/ESGR affiliation of ESGR employee, contractor, or volunteer that handles an inquiry or mediation case; and case notes.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “38 U.S.C. 43, Employment and Reemployment Rights of Members of the Uniformed Services; 5 U.S.C. 574, Confidentiality; 5 U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 5, Subchapter IV, Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution in the Administrative Process; 42 U.S.C. 300hh-11, National Disaster Medical System, ((d)(3) Employment and reemployment rights); 20 CFR 1002, Regulations Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994; 5 CFR 353, Restoration to Duty from Uniformed Service or Compensable Injury; DoD Directive 1250.01, National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (NCESGR); DoD Instruction 1205.22, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve; and DoD Instruction 1205.12, Civilian Employment and Reemployment Rights of Applicants for, and Service Members and Former Service Members of the Uniformed Services.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “To record information related to the mediation of disputes and answering of inquiries related to the USERRA; by tracking case assignments and mediation results of potential conflicts between employers and the National Guard, Reserves, or NDMS members they employ; and by reporting statistics related to the Ombudsman Program in aggregate and at the state committee-level. These records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research.”

    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, the records contained herein may be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To Department of Labor for Congressionally-mandated USERRA reporting (38 U.S.C. Employment and Reemployment Rights of Members of the Uniformed Services § 4432, Reports).

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component 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 DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, 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.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management Routine Use: A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Disclosure to the Merit Systems Protection Board Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the Office of the Special Counsel for the purpose of litigation, including administrative proceedings, appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of OPM or component rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices; including administrative proceedings involving any individual subject of a DoD investigation, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component 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 other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component 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 Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx

    Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual's full name and ESGR case number.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Physical controls include combination locks, cipher locks, key cards, identification badges, closed circuit televisions, and controlled screenings. Technical controls include user identification and password, intrusion detection system, encryption, Common Access Card, firewall, virtual private network, role-based access controls, and two-factor authentication. Administrative controls include periodic security audits, regular monitoring of users' security practices, methods to ensure only authorized personnel access information, encryption of backups containing sensitive data, backups secured off-site, and use of visitor registers.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Temporary. Contact information (email, phone number, details/notes of questions asked) from the inquiry data destroy 90 days after inquiry has been closed.

    Masterfile: Destroy 3 years after settlement is implemented or case is discontinued.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Executive Director, Headquarters, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1200.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Executive Director, Headquarters, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1200.

    Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name and personal contact information (address, phone number, and email).”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name and personal contact information (address, phone number, email) and the name and number of this system of records notice.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual, and Member Management System (MMS).”

    [FR Doc. 2015-27012 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.

    DATES:

    Monday, November 9, 2015 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m. (Open Session) 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (Administrative Working Meeting) 12:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (Open Session) ADDRESSES:

    Davis Conference Center, 7633 Bayshore Boulevard, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida 33621 (Pre-meeting screening and registration required; see guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539, [email protected] For meeting information, please contact Ms. Kendal Brown, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, [email protected], (703) 681-6670, Fax: (703) 681-9539.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site, http://www.health.mil/About-MHS/Other-MHS-Organizations/Defense-Health-Board/Meetings.

    Purpose of the Meeting

    The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a decision briefing for deliberation and provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues or lessons learned related to military medicine, health policy, health research, disease/injury prevention, health promotion, and healthcare delivery.

    Agenda

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 2015. The DHB anticipates deliberating a decision briefing from the Neurological/Behavioral Health Subcommittee regarding Population Normative Values for Post-Concussive Computerized Neurocognitive Assessments. In addition, information briefings will be presented on mental health treatment collaboration with the James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Sustained Medical and Readiness Training (SMART), medical evaluation boards, an update on the work of the Joint Committee to Create a National Policy to Enhance Survivability from Intentional Mass-Casualty and Active Shooter Events, and medical implications of anti-access/area denial.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 30, 2015 to register and must provide their driver's license number and social security number to Ms. Brown. Public attendees enter MacDill AFB through the Dale Mabry Gate. Attendees should allow one hour for the security check and travel to meeting location. Additional details will be provided to all registrants.

    Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements

    Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.

    Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Written statements should not be longer than two type-written pages and address the following details: the issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, as needed, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information.

    If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.

    The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Morgan F. Park, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27011 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, California, General Reevaluation AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District (Corps), intends to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the general reevaluation of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, California. The Corps will serve as the lead agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The general reevaluation is assessing opportunities to restore ecosystem function along the Sacramento River and improve flood risk reduction capabilities of the flood conveyance system originally constructed in 1917. The system is located along the Sacramento River, from Elder Creek near Tehama to its confluence with the San Joaquin River in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta near Collinsville. System features are also located along a number of tributaries, sloughs, and bypass channels, including the Feather River, American River, Sutter Bypass, and Yolo Bypass.

    DATES:

    Written comments regarding the scope of the general reevaluation and DEIS should be received by the Corps on or before November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments and suggestions concerning this general reevaluation and DEIS to Mr. Dan Artho, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Attn: Planning Division (CESPK-PD), 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 or via email at [email protected] Requests to be placed on the mailing list should also be sent to this address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Dan Artho via telephone at (916) 557-7723, email at [email protected], or fax at (916) 557-7856. Study information will also be posted periodically on the internet at http://bit.ly/sacrivergrr.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Proposed Action. The Corps, in cooperation with its non-Federal sponsors (The Central Valley Flood Protection Board and the State of California Department of Water Resources), is reevaluating the Sacramento River Flood Control Project to identify opportunities to restore the function and processes of the Sacramento River's aquatic ecosystem as well as improve the project's flood risk reduction performance. The general reevaluation is authorized pursuant with the Flood Control Act, Public Law 64-367, § 2, 39 Stat. 948 (1917) as amended and modified by subsequent Acts of Congress and as modified by Flood Control Act, Public Law 86-654, § 203, 74 Stat. 498 (1960), as supplemented by the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act, Public Law 93-252, § 202, 88 Stat. 49 (1974), and the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, Public Law 97-377, § 140, 96 Stat. 1916 (1982), and the Water Resources Development Act, Public Law 110-114, § 3031, 121 Stat. 1113 (2007).

    2. Alternatives. The general reevaluation will assess a combination of one or more ecosystem restoration and flood risk management measures including widening existing bypasses, modifying existing weirs, optimizing weir operations, constructing setback levees, developing floodplain management plans, restoring riverine aquatic and riparian habitat, removing barriers to fish passage, and restoring natural geomorphic processes, among others. Changes or modifications to the Sacramento River Flood Control Project may include updates or revisions to the operation and maintenance manuals in affected areas. In addition, a no action alternative will be assessed. Mitigation measures for any significant adverse effects on environmental resources will be identified and incorporated into the alternatives in compliance with various Federal and State statutes.

    3. Scoping Process:

    a. Public scoping meetings will be held on November 3rd, 2015, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the City of West Sacramento, 1110 W. Capitol Ave., West Sacramento, California 95691, and November 9th, 2015 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Yuba County Board of Supervisors, 915 Eighth Street, Marysville, California 95901. An overview of the study and the NEPA process will be presented, and an opportunity will be afforded to all interested parties to provide comments regarding the scope of the draft general reevaluation and DEIS analysis as well as potential alternatives.

    b. Issues that will be analyzed in depth in the DEIS include effects on hydrology and hydraulics, vegetation and wildlife, special-status species, water quality, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, transportation, agricultural resources, hazardous materials, and cultural resources. Other issues may include geology, soils, topography, noise, esthetics, climate and recreation. This is a large geographic extent with many technical, physical, biological, and social complexities associated with it.

    c. The Corps will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Corps will also consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and coordinate with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to establish consultation requirements with tribes having trust assets and tribal interests that could be affected by the general reevaluation's outcome.

    d. A 45-day review period will be allowed for all interested agencies and individuals to review and comment on the DEIS. All interested persons are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be contacted about the DEIS.

    4. Availability. The DEIS is scheduled to be available for public review and comment in the Spring of 2017.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Michael J. Farrell, Colonel, U.S. Army, District Commander.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27032 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Meeting; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology AGENCY:

    Office of Science, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of partially-closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a partially-closed meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Council. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    November 20, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC in the Lecture Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding the meeting agenda, time, location, and how to register for the meeting is available on the PCAST Web site at: http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. A live video webcast and an archive of the webcast after the event are expected to be available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. The archived video will be available within one week of the meeting. Questions about the meeting should be directed to Ms. Jennifer Michael at [email protected], (202) 395-2121. Please note that public seating for this meeting is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House, cabinet departments, and other Federal agencies. See the Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. PCAST is consulted about and provides analyses and recommendations concerning a wide range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House; and Dr. Eric S. Lander, President, Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard.

    Type of Meeting: Open and Closed.

    Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is scheduled to meet in open session on November 20, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Open Portion of Meeting: During this open meeting, PCAST is scheduled to discuss its study on private sector activities for adaptation and resilience to climate change and its letter report on hearing technologies. They will also hear from speakers who will remark on nanotechnology and who will discuss new regulatory frameworks for research. Additional information and the agenda, including any changes that arise, will be posted at the PCAST Web site at:http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.

    Closed Portion of the Meeting: PCAST may hold a closed meeting of approximately 1 hour with the President on November 20, 2015, which must take place in the White House for the President's scheduling convenience and to maintain Secret Service protection. This meeting will be closed to the public because such portion of the meeting is likely to disclose matters that are to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

    The public comment period for this meeting will take place on November 20, 2015 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

    Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the meeting, interested parties should register to speak at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast, no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 12, 2015. Phone or email reservations will not be accepted. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of up to 15 minutes. If more speakers register than there is space available on the agenda, PCAST will randomly select speakers from among those who applied. Those not selected to present oral comments may always file written comments with the committee. Speakers are requested to bring at least 25 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the PCAST members.

    Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted continuously, written comments should be submitted to PCAST no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 12, 2015 so that the comments may be made available to the PCAST members prior to this meeting for their consideration. Information regarding how to submit comments and documents to PCAST is available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the section entitled “Connect with PCAST.”

    Please note that because PCAST operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the PCAST Web site.

    Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this public meeting should contact Ms. Jennifer Michael at least ten business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26998 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-15-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Power Limited Partnership.

    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Michigan Power Limited Partnership.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5314.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-023; ER10-2718-024; ER14-1317-005; ER11-2041-009; ER11-2042-009; ER10-3193-008; ER10-2964-010; ER10-2924-008; ER10-2480-007; ER10-2959-008; ER10-2961-008; ER10-2934-007; ER12-281-009; ER10-3099-015; ER13-821-009; ER10-2950-007; ER14-2500-003; ER14-2498-003; ER10-2615-009; ER10-2538-005; ER11-2335-010.

    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Sunshine Gas Producers, LLC, Innovative Energy Systems, LLC, Seneca Energy II, LLC, Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P., Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P., Kleen Energy Systems, LLC, Berkshire Power Company, LLC, Chambers Cogeneration, Limited Partnership, Edgecombe Genco, LLC, Logan Generating Company, L.P., Northampton Generating Company, L.P., RC Cape May Holdings, LLC, Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P., Spruance Genco, LLC, Newark Energy Center, LLC, EIF Newark, LLC, Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC, Plum Point Services Company, LLC, Panoche Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., et al.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2236-001.

    Applicants: Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing, Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC to be effective 9/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5329.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2237-001.

    Applicants: Kanstar Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing, Kanstar Transmission, LLC to be effective 9/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-117-000.

    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Oden IFA to be effective 10/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5299.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-118-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-19_Allete Transmission Rate Incentive Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-119-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4276; Queue #Y3-088/Y3-090/Y3-091 to be effective 9/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5342.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    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 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26960 Filed 10-22-15; 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: RP16-49-000.

    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Updated Shipper Index Dec 2015 to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-50-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: October 15-31 2015 Auction to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-51-000.

    Applicants: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cadeville Gas Storage—August 2015 Tariff Modifications to be effective 8/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20151014-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-52-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Encana 37663 Rate Case Amendment-fuel) to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20151015-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26961 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1577-004.

    Applicants: Dogwood Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Dogwood Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5491.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2693-002.

    Applicants: Baltimore Power Company LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 2 to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5414.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-99-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL and Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. Revisions to NITSA No. 266 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5374.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-100-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and HyperGen Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5375.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-101-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and JMC Wind Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5376.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-102-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and LimiEnergy Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5378.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-103-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and Maiden Winds Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5381.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-104-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and MD&E Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5385.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-105-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and Power Beyond Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5388.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-106-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and Power Blades Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5390.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-107-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and Stony Hills Transmission and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5396.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-108-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and Tower of Power Transmission & Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5403.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-109-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and Whispering Wind Transmission & Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5405.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-110-000.

    Applicants: Windom Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Windom Transmission and White Caps Interconnection and Transmission Agreement to be effective 12/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5407.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-111-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Vantage Long Term P-T-P Service Agreement to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5452.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-112-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Kittitas NITSA SA No. 796 and NOA SA No. 797 to be effective 9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151016-5460.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-113-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised Service Agreement No. 3990; Queue W1-130 (WMPA) to be effective 9/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-114-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-19_SA 1975 Ameren-Norris 4th Rev WDS Agreement to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-115-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3rd Quarter 2015 Update to OA/RAA Member Lists to be effective 9/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-116-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Eversource Energy Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Eversource Energy Service Company—Attachment F to be effective 4/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151019-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/15.

    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 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26959 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD06-6-000] Joint Meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Notice of Joint Meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a joint meeting on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The meeting is expected to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at approximately 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Members of the public may attend the open session. Commissioners from both agencies are expected to participate.

    The format for the joint meeting will consist of discussions between the two sets of Commissioners following presentations by their respective staffs. In addition, representatives of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) will attend and participate in this meeting.

    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202) 347-3700. There will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with Internet access can listen to the conference by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating the technical conference in the Calendar. The technical conference will contain a link to its webcast. The Capital Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of listing to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, please visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-3100.1

    1 The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site www.ferc.gov for three months after the conference.

    Pre-registration is not required but is highly encouraged for those attending in person. Attendees may register in advance at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/10-21-15-NRC-form.asp. Attendees should bring a photo ID and allow time to pass through building security procedures. There is no fee to attend the open meeting.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502 -8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    Questions about the meeting should be directed to Sarah McKinley at [email protected] or by phone at 202-502-8368.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26898 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-1-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on October 1, 2015, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA, filed an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking authorization to: (1) Abandon by sale its gathering and products extraction facilities to Dominion Gathering & Processing, Inc. (DGP) located within the states of West Virginia and Pennsylvania; and (2) refunctionalize certain compression facilities at a processing plant located in Lewis County, West Virginia to gathering and include the compression facilities in the abandonment by sale to DGP, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed Machelle F. Grim, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219, or call (804) 771-3805, or fax (804) 771-4804, or by email: [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 6, 2015.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26899 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9023-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Filed 10/12/2015 Through 10/16/2015. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150291, Draft, NMFS, FL, Regulatory Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Comment Period Ends: 12/07/2015, Contact: Rick DeVictor 727-551-5720. EIS No. 20150292, Final, HUD, CA, Potrero HOPE SF Master Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/23/2015, Contact: Eugene Flannery 415-701-5598. EIS No. 20150293, Final, USFS, AK, Saddle Lakes Timber Sale, Review Period Ends: 12/07/2015, Contact: Daryl Bingham 907-228-4114. EIS No. 20150294, Draft, FHWA, NC, I-26 Asheville Connector, Comment Period Ends: 12/07/2015, Contact: John F. Sullivan, III 919-856-4346 ext. 122. Dated: October 20, 2015. Karin Leff Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27054 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0503; FRL-9934-96] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for August 2015 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from August 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0183, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from August 2, 2015 to August 31, 2015, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

    III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's, TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    As used in each of the tables, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.

    For the PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI). The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.

    Table 1—Status of the 45 PMNs Received From August 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015 Case No. Received date Projected end date for EPA review Manufacturer importer Use Chemical P-15-0666 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (G) Epoxy hardener (G) Formaldehyde, polymer with aromatic diamine, 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and phenol. P-15-0667 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 Fritz industries, Inc (S) Oil field additive (S) Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], alpha-[2-[bis(phosphonomethyl)amino]methylethyl]-omega-[2-[bis(phosphonomethyl)amino]methylethoxy]-, sodium salt (1:4). P-15-0669 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (S) Agricultural iron micronutrient (G) Glycine, n,n′-alkyldiylbis-, reaction products with formaldehyde, iron chloride (fecl3) and phenol, potassium salts. P-15-0670 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (G) Fluid Stabilizer (S) 1,6-Hexanediamine, acetate (1:2). P-15-0670 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (G) Fluid Stabilizer (S) Ethanol, 2-[(2-aminoethyl)amino]-, acetate (1:2). P-15-0670 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (G) Fluid Stabilizer (S) 1,2-Cyclohexanediamine, acetate (1:2). P-15-0670 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (G) Fluid Stabilizer (S) 1,2-Ethanediamine, n1-(2-aminoethyl)-, acetate (1:3). P-15-0670 8/4/2015 11/2/2015 CBI (G) Fluid Stabilizer (S) 1,2-Ethanediamine, n1,n2-bis(2-aminoethyl)-, acetate (1:4). P-15-0671 8/5/2015 11/3/2015 Tri-State Asphalt, LLC (S) Emulsifying agent used in the production of asphalt emulsions for “chipsealing” and other road maintenance techniques (S) 9-Octadecen-1-amine, hydrochloride (1:1), (9Z). P-15-0672 8/5/2015 11/3/2015 CBI (S) Filtration Media (not for drinking water) (G) Carbon Nanotube. P-15-0673 8/6/2015 11/4/2015 CBI (S) Modified urethane polymer used as a deflocculating and dispersing additive in industrial paints and coatings (G) Modified Urethane Polymer. P-15-0674 8/6/2015 11/4/2015 Cardolite Corporation (G) Cashew nutshell liquid based, epoxy hardener for Higher solids epoxy formulations (G) Cashew nutshell liquid polymner with formaldehyde and amine. P-15-0675 8/7/2015 11/5/2015 CBI (G) Reactive polyol in automotive coatings application (G) Carbamate ester. P-15-0676 8/7/2015 11/5/2015 CBI (G) Reactive polyol in automotive coatings application (G) Carbamate ester. P-15-0678 8/10/2015 11/8/2015 CBI (G) Industrial paper additive (G) Metal salt of mineral acid, reaction products with alumina, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide oxide (al(oh)o), silica, titanium oxide (tio2) and 3-(triethoxysilyl)-1-propanamine. P-15-0679 8/10/2015 11/8/2015 CBI (G) Industrial paper additive (G) Metal salt of mineral acid, reaction products with alumina, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide oxide (al(oh)o), silica, titanium oxide (tio2) and 3-(triethoxysilyl)-n-[3-(triethoxysilyl)propyl]-1-propanamine. P-15-0680 8/10/2015 11/8/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient in liquid paint coating (G) Propenoic acid, alkyl ester, polymer with 1,3-cyclohexanedialkylamine, reaction products with oxirane(alkoxyalkyl). P-15-0681 8/11/2015 11/9/2015 CBI (S) Modified urethane polymer used as a deflocculating and dispersing additive in industrial coatings (G)Modified Urethane Polymer. P-15-0682 8/11/2015 11/9/2015 CBI (G) Fluid loss control additive (G) Acrylic-humic acid-based polymer. P-15-0683 8/11/2015 11/9/2015 CBI (G) Demulsifier (G) Silylated polyether. P-15-0684 8/12/2015 11/10/2015 Allnex USA Inc (S) Protective general industrial metal coating resin (G) Substituted alkenoic acid, alkyl ester, telomer with alkanethiol and oxiranylalkyl alkyl-alkenoatenoate. P-15-0686 8/12/2015 11/10/2015 Eden Innovations LLC (G) Part C: As a concrete admixture, the liquid product containing Part C is mixed with cement, rock aggregates, water and other additives at a concrete mixing plant, usually for delivery by truck to a construction site. Future potential use as an additive for polymers and/or coatings (G) Future potential use as an additive for polymers and/or coatings.
  • (G) Part C.
  • P-15-0687 8/12/2015 11/10/2015 CBI (G) Adhesive for open non-descriptive use (G) Polyester adduct. P-15-0688 8/13/2015 11/11/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient for consumer products; dispersive use (S) Ethyl tetrahydrofuran-2-carboxylate. P-15-0689 8/17/2015 11/15/2015 CBI (S) Chemical Intermediate (G) Vegetable Fatty Acid Alkyl Ester. P-15-0690 8/17/2015 11/15/2015 CBI (S) Chemical Intermediate (G) Vegetable Fatty Acid Alkyl Ester. P-15-0691 8/17/2015 11/15/2015 CBI (G) Polymer backbone for further processing (G) Polyaminoamide. P-15-0692 8/17/2015 11/15/2015 CBI (G) Open non-dispersive use; dispersive use (G) Fatty acid esters with polyol. P-15-0693 8/17/2015 11/15/2015 CBI (G) Sheet moulding additive (G) 1,2-Ethanediamine, n1-(2-aminoethyl)-, reaction products with polyethylenimine and polypropylene alkyol ethers. P-15-0694 8/18/2015 11/16/2015 CBI (G) Epoxy Hardener (G) Phenol, polymer with formaldehyde, glycidyl ether, polymers with aromatic diamine, reaction products with (alkoxymethyl)oxirane. P-15-0695 8/18/2015 11/16/2015 CBI (G) Additive in oil and gas production (G) Cocoamidoamine, methanesulfonates. P-15-0696 8/19/2015 11/17/2015 CBI (G) Crosslinker for coatings (G) Urethane Acrylate. P-15-0697 8/19/2015 11/17/2015 CBI (S) Boron-free, ferrous corrosion inhibitor for water-based metalworking fluids (G) Alkyl alkylenetriamine compd. with alkanol ethoxylate phosphate. P-15-0698 8/20/2015 11/18/2015 CBI (S) Binder polymer for industrial coatings (focus: metal protection) (G) Polymer of Aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, Alkanediol and Cycloaliphatic diol. P-15-0700 8/20/2015 11/18/2015 Bostik, Inc (G) Adhesive (G) Long chain oil, pre polymer with Methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], oxepanone and hydroxy terminated triol. P-15-0702 8/26/2015 11/24/2015 CBI (G) Additive, open, non-dispersive use (G) Modified polyethyleneglycol diacrylate salt with acidic polyethylene ester. P-15-0704 8/26/2015 11/24/2015 Gelest (S) Formation of specialty silicone Elastomers; research (S) Siloxanes and silicones, di-me, [(butylethenylmethylsilyl)oxy]- and hydrogen-terminated. P-15-0705 8/26/2015 11/24/2015 CBI (S) Alkylarylamine used as an additive and octane booster in aviation fuels (G) Alkylarylamine. P-15-0706 8/27/2015 11/25/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient for multipurpose exterior coatings (G) Mixture of aliphatic N-alkyl ureas containing substituted cyclohexyl and terminal alkoxysilane groups. P-15-0707 8/27/2015 11/25/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient for multipurpose exterior coatings (G) Mixture of aliphatic N-alkyl ureas containing aspartic ester and terminal alkoxysilane groups. P-15-0708 8/28/2015 11/26/2015 CBI (S) Production moisture curing PU hot melts (adhesive) (G) Polyester Polymer of Aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, Alkanediol and Polyethylen glycol methylphosphonate. P-15-0709 8/28/2015 11/26/2015 CBI (S) Cement particle dispersant in concrete mixtures (G) Carboxylic acid polymer with sodium phosphinate ester with a-methyl- w-hydroxypoly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl). P-15-0710 8/28/2015 11/26/2015 CBI (S) Cement particle dispersant in concrete mixtures (G) Carboxylic acid polymer ester with a-methyl-w-hydroxypoly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl). P-15-0711 8/29/2015 11/27/2015 CBI (G) Organic light-emitting diode material (G) Amine-alkyl-polyaromatic hydrocarbon polymer. P-15-0712 8/31/2015 11/29/2015 CBI (G) Material for highly dispersive use in consumer products (G) Disubstituted cycloalkanol.

    For the TMEs received by EPA during this period, Table 2 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI). The EPA case number assigned to the TME, the date the TME was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the TME, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the TME, and the chemical identity.

    Table 2—Status of the 2 TMEs Received From August 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015 Case No. Received date Projected end date for EPA review Manufacturer importer Use Chemical T-15-0015 8/17/2015 10/1/2015 CBI (S) Chemical Intermediate (G) Vegetable Fatty Acid Alkyl Ester. T-15-0016 8/17/2015 10/1/2015 CBI (S) Chemical Intermediate (G) Vegetable Fatty Acid Alkyl Ester.

    For the NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 3 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI). The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.

    Table 3—Status of the 42 NOCs Received From August 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015 Case No. Received date Commencement date Chemical P-10-0237 8/31/2015 8/21/2015 (S) 2-Propenenitrile polymer with 1,1′-[oxybis(2,1-ethanediyloxy)]bis[ethene], sapond., sodium salts. P-12-0480 8/4/2015 7/15/2015 (G) Alkyl maleimide substituted bicyclic olefin. P-13-0180 8/5/2015 6/1/2015 (G) Fatty acid amide. P-13-0181 8/5/2015 6/1/2015 (G) Fatty acid amide. P-13-0595 8/17/2015 7/28/2015 (G) Oxirane, alkyl-, polymer with oxirane, hydrogen sulfate, alkyl ethers, alkali metal salts. P-13-0863 8/4/2015 7/24/2015 (G) Polyamic acid. J-14-0012 8/17/2015 3/4/2015 (S) Trichoderma reesei for cellulose conversion. J-14-0014 8/17/2015 2/19/2015 (S) Trichoderma reesei for cellulose conversion. J-14-0015 8/17/2015 2/25/2015 (S) Trichoderma reesei for cellulose conversion. P-14-0128 8/20/2015 8/1/2015 (G) Alkyl methacrylate polymer with alkyl acrylate, bis(2,3-heteromonocyclicalkoxy) -2,2-dialkylpropane, vinyl aromatic, propenoic acid esters with c12-14-alkyloxy 1,2 alkyldiol, amine salts. P-14-0132 8/31/2015 8/31/2015 (S) Alkanes, c8-11-branched and linear. P-14-0133 8/31/2015 8/31/2015 (S) Alkanes, c9-12-branched and linear. P-14-0134 8/31/2015 8/31/2015 (S) Alkanes, c9-13 branched and linear. P-14-0135 8/31/2015 8/31/2015 (S) Alkanes, c10-13-branched and linear. P-14-0397 8/17/2015 8/6/2015 (S) Benzenepropanol, 1-benzoate. P-14-0621 8/3/2015 7/13/2015 (G) Alkanedioic anhydride, polymer with alkanediol and branched alcohol. P-14-0817 8/11/2015 8/3/2015 (S) 3-Hexenoic acid, cyclopropylmethyl ester. J-15-0003 8/17/2015 6/11/2015 (S) Trichoderma reesei for cellulose conversion. J-15-0004 8/17/2015 6/6/2015 (S) Trichoderma reesei for cellulose conversion. J-15-0005 8/17/2015 6/3/2015 (S) Trichoderma reesei for cellulose conversion. J-15-0019 8/16/2015 7/22/2015 (G) Organic acid producing organism. P-15-0033 8/27/2015 8/10/2015 (G) Alkyl and aryl-substituted polysiloxane. P-15-0111 8/7/2015 8/4/2015 (G) Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with an ether and triethylenetetramine. P-15-0166 8/7/2015 7/22/2015 (G) Aromatic polyester resin. P-15-0271 8/4/2015 7/28/2015 (G) Urethane resin. P-15-0274 8/7/2015 7/22/2015 (G) Substituted polystyrene. P-15-0283 8/25/2015 8/5/2015 (S) Carbamic acid, n-octadecyl-,c,c'-[2,2-dimethyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1,3-propanediyl]ester. P-15-0290 8/27/2015 8/24/2015 (G) 2-Oxepanone, polymer with 2,diisocyanato and alkyl ester imidazole-alkyamine-blocked. P-15-0318 8/14/2015 8/11/2015 (S) Benzene, 1,1′-(2,4-cyclopentadien-1-ylidenemethylene)bis-. P-15-0354 8/12/2015 7/15/2015 (G) Perfluoropolyether-block-polytetrafluoroethylene. P-15-0356 8/11/2015 8/11/2015 (S) 2-Propanol, 1,3-bis[4-[1-[4-[1-methyl-1-[4-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]ethyl]phenyl]-1-[4-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]ethyl]phenoxy]-. P-15-0356 8/11/2015 8/11/2015 (S) Oxirane, 2,2′-[[1-[4-[1-methyl-1-[4-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)phenyl]ethyl]phenyl]ethylidene]bis(4,1-phenyleneoxymethylene)]bis-. P-15-0358 8/20/2015 8/6/2015 (G) Oxepanone, polymers with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane trimer and 2-Hydroxyethyl acrylate. P-15-0367 8/6/2015 8/5/2015 (G) Cycloalkanediamine, polymer with 2,2′-[methylenebis(phenyleneoxymethylene)]bis[oxirane]. P-15-0374 8/26/2015 8/17/2015 (G) Methacrylic copolymer with cyclic structure unit. P-15-0378 8/31/2015 8/31/2015 (G) Disubstituted, homopolymer, alkanoic acid-polyalkylene glycol ether with substituted alkane (3:1) reaction products-blocked. P-15-0385 8/19/2015 7/20/2015 (G) Hydrogenated oil. P-15-0416 8/21/2015 7/30/2015 (G) Aromatic isocyanate, polymer with aromatic diamine, alkyloxirane, alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with alkyltriol (3:1), and oxirane. P-15-0423 8/14/2015 7/24/2015 (G) Polyurethane, (meth)acrylate blocked. P-15-0460 8/20/2015 8/19/2015 (G) Substituted alkanoic acid-, metal salt. P-15-0461 8/24/2015 8/16/2015 (G) Siloxanes and silicones, alkoxy me, polymers with me silsesquioxanes, alkoxy-terminated. Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Pamela S. Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27031 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0651; FRL-9934-39] Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2., the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, PPDC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dea Zimmerman, Designated Federal Officer, Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), U.S. EPA, (mail code LC-8J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, telephone number: (312) 353-6344; email address: [email protected].

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in in agricultural settings or if you are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants; State, local, and tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0651, 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.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. App.2.

    Dated: October 13, 2015. Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26769 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Petition No. P5-15] Petition of Pacific International Lines and Mariana Express Lines for an Exemption From Commission Regulations; Notice of Filing and Request for Comments

    This is to provide notice of filing and to invite comments on or before November 13, 2015, with regard to the Petition described below.

    Pacific International Lines (Private) Limited (PIL) and Mariana Express Lines Pte. Ltd. (MELL) (Petitioners), have petitioned the Commission pursuant to 46 CFR 502.74, for an exemption “equivalent to that contained in 46 CFR 535.307.” The Commission's regulations at 46 CFR 535.307 exempt agreements between or among wholly owned subsidiaries from the filing requirements of the Shipping Act. Specifically, Petitioners state that on March 11, 2015, PIL acquired sixty-five (65%) percent of the shares of MELL. Petitioners assert that FMC law and regulations would likely require PIL and MELL to file a number of agreements between themselves with the FMC, delay and what should be routine day-to-day decisions between a parent and its subsidiary.

    The Petition in its entirety will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fmc.gov/p5-15. Comments filed in response to this Petition also will be posted on the Commission's Web site at this location.

    In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the Petition, interested persons are requested to submit views or arguments in reply to the Petition no later than November 13, 2015. Commenters must send an original and 5 copies to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, and be served on Petitioner's counsel, Neal M. Mayer, Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman, 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. A text-searchable PDF copy of the reply must also be sent as an attachment to [email protected] and include in the subject line: “P5-15, PIL and MELL Petition.” Replies containing confidential information should not be submitted by email.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27053 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-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 9, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. The Franklin D. Gaines Wife's Trust, Beverly J. Tipton, individually and as trustee, Michael D. Jeffers, all of Fredonia, Kansas, and Betheny L. Winkler, Santa Fe, New Mexico, as trustees; to acquire voting shares of First National Bancshares Corporation of Fredonia, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank in Fredonia, both in Fredonia, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 20, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27010 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 19, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Farmers Exchange Bancorporation, Inc., Cherokee, Oklahoma; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of The First National Bank of Nash, Nash, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 20, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26990 Filed 10-22-15; 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 10. Litigation Adjourn

    This notice serves as a revision to the previously published Sunshine Notice dated October 19, 2015 and published on October 21, 2015 in the Federal Register.

    Volume 80SR 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. 2015-27128 Filed 10-21-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-2015-ISP-2015-02; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence 2] Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of an Updated System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer; General Services Administration.

    ACTION:

    Updated notice.

    SUMMARY:

    GSA proposes to update a system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    DATES:

    Effective: November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    GSA Privacy Act Officer (ISP), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Call the GSA Privacy Act Officer at 202-368-1852 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    GSA is updating a system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The notice provides updated information. Nothing in the notice will impact individuals' rights to access or amend their records in the systems of records.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer, Office of GSA IT (I). GSA/GOVT-7 SYSTEM NAME:

    HSPD-12 USAccess.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Records covered by this system are maintained by a contractor at the contractor's site.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    The Personal Identity Verification Identity Management System (PIV IDMS) records will cover all participating agency employees, contractors and their employees, consultants, and volunteers who require routine, long-term access to federal facilities, information technology systems, and networks. The system also includes individuals authorized to perform or use services provided in agency facilities (e.g., Credit Union, Fitness Center, etc.). At their discretion, participating Federal agencies may include short-term employees and contractors in the PIV program and, therefore, inclusion in the PIV IDMS. Federal agencies shall make risk-based decisions to determine whether to issue PIV cards and require prerequisite background checks for short-term employees and contractors. The system does not apply to occasional visitors or short-term guests. GSA and participating agencies will issue temporary identification and credentials for this purpose.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Enrollment records maintained in the PIV IDMS on individuals applying for the PIV program and a PIV credential through the GSA HSPD-12 managed service include the following data fields: Full name; Social Security Number; Applicant ID number, date of birth; current address; digital color photograph; fingerprints; biometric template (two fingerprints); organization/office of assignment; employee affiliation; work email address; work telephone number(s); office address; copies of identity source documents; employee status; military status; foreign national status; federal emergency response official status; law enforcement official status; results of background check; Government agency code; and PIV card issuance location. Records in the PIV IDMS needed for credential management for enrolled individuals in the PIV program include: PIV card serial number; digital certificate(s) serial number; PIV card issuance and expiration dates; PIV card PIN; Cardholder Unique Identifier (CHUID); and card management keys. Agencies may also choose to collect the following data at PIV enrollment which would also be maintained in the PIV IDMS: Physical characteristics (e.g., height, weight, and eye and hair color). Individuals enrolled in the PIV managed service will be issued a PIV card. The PIV card contains the following mandatory visual personally identifiable information: Name, photograph, employee affiliation, organizational affiliation, PIV card expiration date, agency card serial number, and color-coding for employee affiliation. Agencies may choose to have the following optional personally identifiable information printed on the card: Cardholder physical characteristics (height, weight, and eye and hair color). The card also contains an integrated circuit chip which is encoded with the following mandatory data elements which comprise the standard data model for PIV logical credentials: PIV card PIN, cardholder unique identifier (CHUID), PIV authentication digital certificate, and two fingerprint biometric templates. The PIV data model may be optionally extended by agencies to include the following logical credentials: Digital certificate for digital signature, digital certificate for key management, card authentication keys, and card management system keys. All PIV logical credentials can only be read by machine.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    5 U.S.C. 301; Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3554); E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, Sec. 203); Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et al.) and Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, August 27, 2004.

    PURPOSES:

    The primary purposes of the system are: To ensure the safety and security of Federal facilities, systems, or information, and of facility occupants and users; to provide for interoperability and trust in allowing physical access to individuals entering Federal facilities; and to allow logical access to Federal information systems, networks, and resources on a government-wide basis.

    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. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside GSA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    a. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) when: (1) The agency or any component thereof; or (2) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; (3) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where agency or the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records by DOJ and is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    b. To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (1) The agency or any component thereof; (2) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; (3) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the agency or the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records and is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    c. Except as noted on Forms SF 85, SF 85-P, and SF 86, when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate public authority, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or otherwise, responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity.

    d. To a Member of Congress or to a Congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

    e. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or to the General Services Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    f. To agency contractors, grantees, or volunteers who have been engaged to assist the agency in the performance of a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform their activity. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Federal Information Security Management Act (Pub. L. 107-296), and associated OMB policies, standards and guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the General Services Administration.

    g. To a Federal agency, State, local, foreign, or tribal or other public authority, on request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance or retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license, grant, or other benefit, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision.

    h. To the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) when necessary to the review of private relief legislation pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-19.

    i. To a Federal, State, or local agency, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to enable an intelligence agency to carry out its responsibilities under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the CIA Act of 1949, as amended; Executive Order 12333 or any successor order; and applicable national security directives, or classified implementing procedures approved by the Attorney General and promulgated pursuant to such statutes, orders, or Directives.

    j. To designated agency personnel for controlled access to specific records for the purposes of performing authorized audit or authorized oversight and administrative functions. All access is controlled systematically through authentication using PIV credentials based on access and authorization rules for specific audit and administrative functions.

    k. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or other Federal agency in accordance with the agency's responsibility for evaluation of Federal personnel management.

    l. To the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the FBI National Criminal History check.

    m. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Agency suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Agency 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 other systems or programs (whether maintained by GSA 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 GSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Records are stored in electronic media and in paper files.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records may be retrieved by name of the individual, Cardholder Unique Identification Number, Applicant ID, Social Security Number, and/or by any other unique individual identifier.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act (Pub. L. 107-296), and associated OMB policies, standards and guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the General Services Administration, the GSA HSPD-12 managed service office protects all records from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Access is restricted on a “need to know” basis, utilization of PIV Card access, secure VPN for Web access, and locks on doors and approved storage containers. Buildings have security guards and secured doors. All entrances are monitored through electronic surveillance equipment. The hosting facility is supported by 24/7 onsite hosting and network monitoring by trained technical staff. Physical security controls include: Indoor and outdoor security monitoring and surveillance; badge and picture ID access screening; biometric access screening. Personally identifiable information is safeguarded and protected in conformance with all Federal statutory and OMB guidance requirements. All access has role-based restrictions, and individuals with access privileges have undergone vetting and suitability screening. All data is encrypted in transit. While it is not contemplated, any system records stored on mobile computers or mobile devices will be encrypted. GSA maintains an audit trail and performs random periodic reviews to identify unauthorized access. Persons given roles in the PIV process must be approved by the Government and complete training specific to their roles to ensure they are knowledgeable about how to protect personally identifiable information.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Disposition of records will be according to NARA disposition authority N1-269-06-1 (pending).

    SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

    Director, HSPD-12 Managed Service Office, Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    A request for access to records in this system may be made by writing to the System Manager. When requesting notification of or access to records covered by this Notice, an individual should provide his/her full name, date of birth, agency name, and work location. An individual requesting notification of records must provide identity documents sufficient to satisfy the custodian of the records that the requester is entitled to access, such as a government-issued photo ID.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Same as Notification Procedure above.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Same as Notification Procedure above. State clearly and concisely the information being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information sought.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Employee, contractor, or applicant; sponsoring agency; former sponsoring agency; other Federal agencies; contract employer; former employer.

    [FR Doc. 2015-26940 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-38-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-6063-N2] Medicare Program; Expansion of Prior Authorization for Repetitive Scheduled Non-Emergent Ambulance Transports AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces an expansion of the 3-year Medicare Prior Authorization Model for Repetitive Scheduled Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport in accordance with section 515(a) of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. The model is being expanded to the states of Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Virginia.

    DATES:

    This expansion will begin on January 1, 2016 in Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela Gaston, (410) 786-7409.

    Questions regarding the Medicare Prior Authorization Model Expansion for Repetitive Scheduled Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport should be sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Medicare may cover ambulance services, including air ambulance (fixed-wing and rotary-wing) services, if the ambulance service is furnished to a beneficiary whose medical condition is such that other means of transportation are contraindicated. The beneficiary's condition must require both the ambulance transportation itself and the level of service provided in order for the billed service to be considered medically necessary.

    Non-emergent transportation by ambulance is appropriate if either the—(1) beneficiary is bed-confined and it is documented that the beneficiary's condition is such that other methods of transportation are contraindicated; or (2) beneficiary's medical condition, regardless of bed confinement, is such that transportation by ambulance is medically required. Thus, bed confinement is not the sole criterion in determining the medical necessity of non-emergent ambulance transportation; rather, it is one factor that is considered in medical necessity determinations.1

    1 42 CFR 410.40(d)(1).

    A repetitive ambulance service is defined as medically necessary ambulance transportation that is furnished in 3 or more round trips during a 10-day period, or at least 1 round trip per week for at least 3 weeks.2 Repetitive ambulance services are often needed by beneficiaries receiving dialysis or cancer treatment.

    2 Program Memorandum Intermediaries/Carriers, Transmittal AB-03-106.

    Medicare may cover repetitive, scheduled, non-emergent transportation by ambulance if the—(1) medical necessity requirements described previously are met; and (2) ambulance provider/supplier, before furnishing the service to the beneficiary, obtains a written order from the beneficiary's attending physician certifying that the medical necessity requirements are met (see 42 CFR 410.40(d)(1) and (2)).3

    3 Per 42 CFR 410.40(d)(2), the physician's order must be dated no earlier than 60 days before the date the service is furnished.

    In addition to the medical necessity requirements, the service must meet all other Medicare coverage and payment requirements, including requirements relating to the origin and destination of the transportation, vehicle and staff, and billing and reporting. Additional information about Medicare coverage of ambulance services can be found in 42 CFR 410.40, 410.41, and in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (Pub. 100-02), Chapter 10, at http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/bp102c10.pdf .

    According to a study published by the Government Accountability Office in October 2012, entitled “Costs and Medicare Margins Varied Widely; Transports of Beneficiaries Have Increased,” 4 the number of basic life support (BLS) non-emergent transports for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries increased by 59 percent from 2004 to 2010. A similar finding published by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General in a 2006 study, entitled “Medicare Payments for Ambulance Transports,” 5 indicated a 20-percent nationwide improper payment rate for non-emergent ambulance transport. Likewise, in June 2013, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission published a report 6 that included an analysis of non-emergent ambulance transports to dialysis facilities and found that, during the 5-year period between 2007 and 2011, the volume of transports to and from a dialysis facility increased 20 percent, more than twice the rate of all other ambulance transports combined.

    4 Government Accountability Office Cost and Medicare Margins Varied Widely; Transports of Beneficiaries Have Increased (October 2012).

    5 Office of Inspector General Medicare Payment for Ambulance Transport (January 2006).

    6 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, June 2013, pages 167-193.

    Section 1115A of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes the Secretary to test innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures, while preserving or enhancing the quality of care furnished to Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiaries.

    Section 1115A(d)(1) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirements of Titles XI and XVIII and of sections 1902(a)(1), 1902(a)(13), and 1903(m)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act as may be necessary solely for purposes of carrying out section 1115A of the Act with respect to testing models described in section 1115A(b) of the Act. For these models, consistent with this standard, we will waive such provisions of sections 1834(a)(15) and 1869(h) of the Act that limit our ability to conduct prior authorization. While these provisions are specific to durable medical equipment and physicians' services, we will waive any portion of these sections as well as any portion of 42 CFR 410.20(d), which implements section 1869(h) of the Act, that could be construed to limit our ability to conduct prior authorization. We have determined that the implementation of this model does not require the waiver of any fraud and abuse law, including sections 1128A, 1128B, and 1877 of the Act. Thus providers and suppliers affected by this model must comply with all applicable fraud and abuse laws.

    II. Provisions of the Notice

    In the November 14, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 68271), we published a notice entitled “Medicare Program; Prior Authorization of Repetitive Scheduled Non-emergent Ambulance Transports,” which announced the implementation of a 3-year Medicare Prior Authorization model that established a process for seeking prior authorizations for repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transport rendered by ambulance providers/suppliers garaged in 3 states (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina). These states were selected as the initial states for the model because of their high utilization and improper payment rates for these services. The model began on December 1, 2014, and will end in all 3 states on December 1, 2017. Prior authorization will not apply to or be given for services furnished after that date.

    Section 515(a) of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10), requires expansion of the previously referenced prior authorization model to cover, effective not later than January 1, 2016, states located in Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) regions L and 11 (consisting of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Virginia). As such, in accordance with section 515(a) of MACRA, our initial expansion of the prior authorization model for repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transport will include six additional states: Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. This expansion will begin on January 1, 2016. The model will end in all states on December 1, 2017. Prior authorization will not apply to or be given for services furnished after that date.

    We will continue to test whether prior authorization helps reduce expenditures, while maintaining or improving quality of care, using the established prior authorization process for repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transport to reduce utilization of services that do not comply with Medicare policy.

    We will continue to use this prior authorization process to help ensure that all relevant clinical or medical documentation requirements are met before services are furnished to beneficiaries and before claims are submitted for payment. This prior authorization process further helps to ensure that payment complies with Medicare documentation, coverage, payment, and coding rules.

    The use of prior authorization does not create new clinical documentation requirements. Instead, it requires the same information that is already required to support Medicare payment, just earlier in the process. Prior authorization allows providers and suppliers to address coverage issues prior to furnishing services.

    The prior authorization process under this model will apply in the additional six states listed previously for the following codes for Medicare payment:

    • A0426 Ambulance service, advanced life support, non-emergency transport, Level 1 (ALS1).

    • A0428 Ambulance service, BLS, non-emergency transport.

    While prior authorization in the additional six states is not needed for the mileage code, A0425, a prior authorization decision for an A0426 or A0428 code will automatically include the associated mileage code.

    Prior to the start of the expansion, we will conduct (and thereafter will continue to conduct) outreach and education to ambulance providers/suppliers, as well as beneficiaries, through such methods as the issuance of an operational guide, frequently asked questions (FAQs) on our Web site, a beneficiary mailing, a physician letter explaining the ambulance providers/suppliers' need for the proper documentation, and educational events and materials issued by the MACs. Additional information about the implementation of the prior authorization model is available on the CMS Web site at http://go.cms.gov/PAAmbulance.

    Under this model, an ambulance provider/supplier or beneficiary is encouraged to submit to the MAC a request for prior authorization along with all relevant documentation to support Medicare coverage of a repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transport. Submitting a prior authorization request is voluntary. However, if prior authorization has not been requested by the fourth round trip in a 30-day period, the claims will be stopped for pre-payment review.

    In order to be provisionally affirmed, the request for prior authorization must meet all applicable rules and policies, and any local coverage determination (LCD) requirements for ambulance transport claims. A provisional affirmation is a preliminary finding that a future claim submitted to Medicare for the service likely meets Medicare's coverage, coding, and payment requirements. After receipt of all relevant documentation, the MACs will make every effort to conduct a review and postmark the notification of their decision on a prior authorization request within 10 business days for an initial submission. Notification will be provided to the ambulance provider/supplier and to the beneficiary. If a subsequent prior authorization request is submitted after a non-affirmative decision on an initial prior authorization request, the MACs will make every effort to conduct a review and postmark the notification of their decision on the request within 20 business days.

    An ambulance provider/supplier or beneficiary may request an expedited review when the standard timeframe for making a prior authorization decision could jeopardize the life or health of the beneficiary. If the MAC agrees that the standard review timeframe would put the beneficiary at risk, the MAC will make reasonable efforts to communicate a decision within 2 business days of receipt of all applicable Medicare-required documentation. As this model is for non-emergent services only, we expect requests for expedited reviews to be extremely rare.

    A provisional affirmative prior authorization decision may affirm a specified number of trips within a specific amount of time. The prior authorization decision, justified by the beneficiary's condition, may affirm up to 40 round trips (which equates to 80 one-way trips) per prior authorization request in a 60-day period. Alternatively, a provisional affirmative prior authorization decision may affirm less than 40 round trips in a 60-day period, or may affirm a request that seeks to provide a specified number of transports (40 round trips or less) in less than a 60-day period. A provisional affirmative decision can be for all or part of the requested number of trips. Transports exceeding 40 round trips (or 80 one-way trips) in a 60-day period require an additional prior authorization request.

    The following describes examples of various prior authorization scenarios:

    Scenario 1: When an ambulance provider/supplier or beneficiary submits a prior authorization request to the MAC with appropriate documentation and all relevant Medicare coverage and documentation requirements are met for the ambulance transport, the MAC will send a provisional affirmative prior authorization decision to the ambulance provider/supplier and to the beneficiary. When the claim is submitted to the MAC by the ambulance provider/supplier, it is linked to the prior authorization via the claims processing system and the claim will be paid so long as all Medicare coding, billing, and coverage requirements are met. However, after submission, the claim could be denied for technical reasons, such as the claim was a duplicate claim or the claim was for a deceased beneficiary. In addition, a claim denial could occur because certain documentation, such as the trip record, needed in support of the claim cannot be reviewed on a prior authorization request.

    Scenario 2: When an ambulance provider/supplier or beneficiary submits a prior authorization request, but all relevant Medicare coverage requirements are not met, the MAC will send a non-affirmative prior authorization decision to the ambulance provider/supplier and to the beneficiary, advising them that Medicare will not pay for the service. The provider/supplier or beneficiary may then resubmit the request with documentation showing that Medicare requirements have been met. Alternatively, an ambulance provider/supplier could furnish the service, and submit a claim with a non-affirmative prior authorization tracking number, at which point the MAC would deny the claim. The ambulance provider/supplier and the beneficiary would then have the Medicare denial for secondary insurance purposes and would have the opportunity to submit an appeal of the claim denial if they believe Medicare coverage was denied inappropriately.

    Scenario 3: When an ambulance provider/supplier or beneficiary submits a prior authorization request with incomplete documentation, a detailed decision letter will be sent to the ambulance provider/supplier and to the beneficiary, with an explanation of what information is missing. The ambulance provider/supplier or beneficiary can rectify the situation and resubmit the prior authorization request with appropriate documentation.

    Scenario 4: When an ambulance provider or supplier renders a service to a beneficiary that is subject to the prior authorization process, and the claim is submitted to the MAC for payment without requesting a prior authorization, the claim will be stopped for prepayment review and documentation will be requested.

    ++ If the claim is determined not to be medically necessary or to be insufficiently documented, the claim will be denied, and all current policies and procedures regarding liability for payment will apply. The ambulance provider/supplier or the beneficiary or both can appeal the claim denial if they believe the denial was inappropriate.

    ++ If the claim is determined to be payable, it will be paid.

    Under the model, we will work to limit any adverse impact on beneficiaries and to educate beneficiaries about the process. If a prior authorization request is not affirmed, and the claim is still submitted by the provider/supplier, the claim will be denied in full, but beneficiaries will continue to have all applicable administrative appeal rights.

    Only one prior authorization request per beneficiary per designated time period can be provisionally affirmed. If the initial provider/supplier cannot complete the total number of prior authorized transports (for example, the initial ambulance company closes or no longer services that area), the initial request is cancelled. In this situation, a subsequent prior authorization request may be submitted for the same beneficiary and must include the required documentation in the submission. If multiple ambulance providers/suppliers are providing transports to the beneficiary during the same or overlapping time period, the prior authorization decision will only cover the provider/supplier indicated in the provisionally affirmed prior authorization request. Any provider/supplier submitting claims for repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transports for which no prior authorization request is recorded will be subject to 100 percent pre-payment medical review of those claims.

    Additional information is available on the CMS Web site at http://go.cms.gov/PAAmbulance.

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    Section 1115A(d)(3) of the Act, as added by section 3021 of the Affordable Care Act, states that chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), shall not apply to the testing and evaluation of models or expansion of such models under this section. Consequently, this document need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    IV. Regulatory Impact Statement

    This document announces an expansion of the 3-year Medicare Prior Authorization Model for Repetitive Scheduled Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport. Therefore, there are no regulatory impact implications associated with this notice.

    Authority:

    Section 1115A of the Social Security Act.

    Dated: October 2, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27030 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1960] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 11, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0291. The approval expires on September 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26923 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1048] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Device Labeling Regulations AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Medical Device Labeling Regulations” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 30, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Medical Device Labeling Regulations” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0485. The approval expires on September 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26986 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0560] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance on Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually Identifiable AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the guidance on informed consent for in vitro diagnostic device studies using leftover human specimens that are not individually identifiable.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0560 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance on Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually Identifiable.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted onhttp://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Guidance on Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually Identifiable—OMB Control Number 0910-0582—Extension

    FDA's investigational device regulations are intended to encourage the development of new, useful devices in a manner that is consistent with public health, safety, and compliant with ethical standards. Investigators should have freedom to pursue the least burdensome means of accomplishing this goal. However, to ensure that the balance is maintained between product development and the protection of public health, safety, and ethical standards, FDA has established human subject protection regulations addressing requirements for informed consent and institutional review board (IRB) review that apply to all FDA-regulated clinical investigations involving human subjects. In particular, informed consent requirements further both safety and ethical considerations by allowing potential subjects to consider both the physical and privacy risks they face if they agree to participate in a trial.

    Under FDA regulations, clinical investigations using human specimens conducted in support of premarket submissions to FDA are considered human subject investigations (see 21 CFR 812.3(p)). Many investigational device studies are exempt from most provisions of part 812, Investigational Device Exemptions, under 21 CFR 812.2(c)(3), but FDA's regulations for the protection of human subjects (21 CFR parts 50 and 56) apply to all clinical investigations that are regulated by FDA (see 21 CFR 50.1, 21 CFR 56.101, 21 U.S.C. 360j(g)(3)(A), and 21 U.S.C. 360j(g)(3)(D)).

    FDA regulations do not contain exceptions from the requirements of informed consent on the grounds that the specimens are not identifiable or that they are remnants of human specimens collected for routine clinical care or analysis that would otherwise have been discarded. Nor do FDA regulations allow IRBs to decide whether or not to waive informed consent for research involving leftover or unidentifiable specimens.

    In a level 1 guidance document, entitled “Guidance on Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens that are Not Individually Identifiable,” issued under the Good Guidances Practices regulation, 21 CFR 10.115, FDA outlines the circumstances in which it intends to exercise enforcement discretion as to the informed consent regulations for clinical investigators, sponsors, and IRBs.

    The recommendations of the guidance impose a minimal burden on industry. FDA estimates that 700 studies will be affected annually. Each study will result in one annual record, estimated to take 4 hours to complete. This results in a total recordkeeping burden of 2,800 hours (700 × 4 = 2,800).

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 FD&C Act section No. of
  • recordkeepers
  • No. of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    520(g) 700 1 700 4 2,800 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: October 15, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26985 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0793] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Device Recall Authority AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Medical Device Recall Authority” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 15, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Medical Device Recall Authority” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0432. The approval expires on September 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 15, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26924 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues AGENCY:

    Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (the Commission) will conduct its twenty third meeting on November 17, 2015. At this meeting, the Commission will continue to discuss the role of deliberation and deliberative methods to engage the public and inform consideration in bioethics, and how to integrate pubic dialogue into the bioethics conversation; bioethics education as a forum for fostering deliberative skills, and preparing students to participate in public dialogue in bioethics; goals and methods of bioethics education; and integrating bioethics education across a range of professional disciplines and educational levels.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place November 17, 2015, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Arlington Hotel, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa M. Lee, Executive Director, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-233-3960. Email: [email protected] Additional information may be obtained at www.bioethics.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given for the twenty-third meeting of the Commission. The meeting will be open to the public with attendance limited to space available. The meeting will also be webcast at www.bioethics.gov.

    Under authority of Executive Order 13521, dated November 24, 2009, the President established the Commission. The Commission is an expert panel of not more than 13 members who are drawn from the fields of bioethics, science, medicine, technology, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, or other areas of the humanities or social sciences. The Commission advises the President on bioethical issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology. The Commission seeks to identify and promote policies and practices that ensure scientific research, health care delivery, and technological innovation are conducted in a socially and ethically responsible manner.

    The main agenda items for the Commission's twenty-third meeting are to continue discussing the role of deliberation and deliberative methods to engage the public in bioethics, and how to integrate pubic dialogue into the bioethics conversation; bioethics education as a forum for fostering deliberative skills, and preparing students to participate in public dialogue in bioethics; goals and methods of bioethics education; and integrating bioethics education across a range of professional disciplines and educational levels. The draft meeting agenda and other information about the Commission, including information about access to the webcast, will be available at www.bioethics.gov.

    The Commission welcomes input from anyone wishing to provide public comment on any issue before it. Respectful consideration of opposing views and active participation by citizens in public exchange of ideas enhances overall public understanding of the issues at hand and conclusions reached by the Commission. The Commission is particularly interested in receiving comments and questions during the meeting that are responsive to specific sessions. Written comments will be accepted at the registration desk and comment forms will be provided to members of the public in order to write down questions and comments for the Commission as they arise. To accommodate as many individuals as possible, the time for each question or comment may be limited. If the number of individuals wishing to pose a question or make a comment is greater than can reasonably be accommodated during the scheduled meeting, the Commission may make a random selection.

    Written comments will also be accepted in advance of the meeting and are especially welcome. Please address written comments by email to [email protected], or by mail to the following address: Public Commentary, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20005. Comments will be publicly available, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that they contain. Trade secrets should not be submitted.

    Anyone planning to attend the meeting who needs special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Esther Yoo by telephone at (202) 233-3960, or email at [email protected] in advance of the meeting. The Commission will make every effort to accommodate persons who need special assistance.

    Dated: October 9, 2015. Lisa M. Lee, Executive Director, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26905 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability (ACBTSA) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place Monday, November 9, 2015, from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, November 10, 2015, from 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Veterans' Health Administration National Conference Center, 2011 Crystal Drive, 1st floor Conference Center, Crystal City, VA 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James Berger, Designated Federal Officer for the ACBTSA, Senior Advisor for Blood and Tissue Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: (240) 453-8803; Fax (240) 453-8456; Email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The ACBTSA provides advice to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for Health. The Committee advises on a range of policy issues to include: (1) Identification of public health issues through surveillance of blood and tissue safety issues with national biovigilance data tools; (2) identification of public health issues that affect availability of blood, blood products, and tissues; (3) broad public health, ethical and legal issues related to the safety of blood, blood products, and tissues; (4) the impact of various economic factors (e.g., product cost and supply) on safety and availability of blood, blood products, and tissues; (5) risk communications related to blood transfusion and tissue transplantation; and (6) identification of infectious disease transmission issues for blood, organs, blood stem cells and tissues. The Committee has met regularly since its establishment in 1997.

    In December 2013, the Committee made recommendations regarding the blood system. At that time, the Committee expressed concern about the ongoing reductions in blood use, the number of large scale consolidations occurring, the cost recovery issues for blood centers, and the potential effects on safety and innovation due to instability. Past recommendations made by the ACBTSA may be viewed at www.hhs.gov/bloodsafety.

    This meeting will provide a focused examination of the mechanisms to fund recently approved blood safety innovations, such as pathogen reduction, bacterial testing, and infectious disease testing. It is anticipated that the implementation of these blood safety innovations will come with significant costs to blood collection centers, and it remains unclear how or if the blood industry can afford such implementation. Speakers will include a broad range of stakeholders including blood banks, physicians, blood purchasers, and organizations that reimburse for blood and blood products.

    The public will have an opportunity to present their views to the Committee during a public comment session scheduled for November 10, 2015. Comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker and must be pertinent to the discussion. Pre-registration is required for participation in the public comment session. Any member of the public who would like to participate in this session is required to contact the Designated Federal Officer at his/her earliest convenience to register for time (limited to 5 minutes); registration must be completed prior to close of business on November 2, 2015. If it is not possible to provide 30 copies of the material to be distributed at the meeting, then individuals are requested to provide a minimum of one (1) copy of the document(s) to be distributed prior to the close of business on November 2, 2015. It is also requested that any member of the public who wishes to provide comments to the Committee utilizing electronic data projection submit the necessary material to the Designated Federal Officer prior to the close of business on November 2, 2015.

    Dated: October 16, 2015. James J. Berger, Senior Advisor for Blood and Tissue Safety Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26904 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-41-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting.

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel NEI Clinical and Epidemiological Applications: Uveitis, Cornea and Refractive Error.

    Date: November 10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: JEANETTE M HOSSEINI, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26926 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Addictions, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia.

    Date: November 10, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, Ph.D., IRG CHIEF, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1246, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Psycho/Neuropathology, Lifespan Development, and STEM Education.

    Date: November 16-17, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Long Beach and Executive Center, 701 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90831.

    Contact Person: John H Newman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3222, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0628, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Basic Research on HIV Persistence.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Kenneth A. Roebuck, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cell and Molecular Biology.

    Date: November 18-19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Arlington Capital View, 2800 South Potomac Ave, Arlington, VA.

    Contact Person: Maria DeBernardi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6158, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1355, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Dermatology, Rheumatology and Inflammation.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Yanming Bi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0996, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Learning, Memory, Language, Communication and Related Neurosciences.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Joseph G. Rudolph, Ph.D., Chief and Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5186, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9098, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition, and Reproductive Sciences.

    Date: November 18-19, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Clara M. Cheng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6170 MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-1041, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Eissenstat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BCMB IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1722, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Shared Instrumentation: NMR and X-ray.

    Date: November 18, 2015

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: William A Greenberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1726, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Bioengineering Sciences Drug Delivery, Biomaterials, Nanotechnology and Instrumentation.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Joseph Thomas Peterson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9694, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Immune Mechanisms.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jian Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4095D, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2778, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Bacterial and Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ronald Adkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2206, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-4511, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AREA Grant Application Review.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Angela Y. Ng, Ph.D., MBA, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6200, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1715, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Sleep, Psychopathology, Emotion, and Stress.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Andrea B. Kelly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3182, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 455-1761, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AIDS and AIDS Related Applications.

    Date: November 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jingsheng Tuo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3196, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-5953, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies: AREA Review.

    Date: November 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Nancy Templeton, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5168, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9694, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Non-HIV Diagnostics, Food Safety, Sterilization/Disinfection, and Bioremediation.

    Date: November 19-20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 3200, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Diagnostics and Treatments (CDT).

    Date: November 19-20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    Contact Person: Zhang-Zhi Hu, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6186, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2414, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Computational, Modeling, and Biodata Management.

    Date: November 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Allen Richon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6184, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-9351, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Medical Imaging.

    Date: November 19-20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Rd, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Leonid V. Tsap, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2507, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; HIV/AIDS Vaccines Study Section.

    Date: November 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Barna Dey, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0000, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Respiratory Sciences.

    Date: November 19-20, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ghenima Dirami, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4122, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-498-7546, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Mental Illness Clinical Studies.

    Date: November 19, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Savvas Makrides, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2514, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Innovative Immunology Research.

    Date: November 20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Deborah Hodge, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4207, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1238, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; NeuroAIDS and other End-Organ Diseases Study Section.

    Date: November 20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Fairmont Hotel San Francisco, 950 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA 94108.

    Contact Person: Eduardo A. Montalvo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1168, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Immunology and Pathogenesis Study Section.

    Date: November 20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Shiv A. Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5220, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-5779, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-15-088: Shared Instrumentation Miscellaneous.

    Date: November 20, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Marie-Jose Belanger, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scentific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5181, MSC, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-14-281: Connectomes Related to Human Disease.

    Date: November 20, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Eugene Carstea, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9756, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Mechanisms of Neurodegeneration and Neuropathology.

    Date: November 20, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Linda MacArthur, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4187, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-537-9986, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-14-021 XSBR: X-ray Structural Biology Resource.

    Date: November 22-24, 2015.

    Time: 5:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Hotel Shattuck Plaza, 2086 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704.

    Contact Person: Nuria E. Assa-Munt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4164, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-1323, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Child Psychopathology and Developmental Disorders AREA Review.

    Date: November 23, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Serena Chu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BBBP IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3178, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-500-5829, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Gastrointestinal Pathobiology.

    Date: November 23, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1198, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26927 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with the attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.

    Date: December 4, 2015.

    Open: 8:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

    Agenda: A report by the Scientific Director, NICHD, on the status of the NICHD Division of Intramural Research, talks by various intramural scientists, and proposed organizational change.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 12:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Constantine A. Staratakis, MD, D(med)Sci Scientific Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Building 31A, Room 2A46, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5984, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://dir.nichd.nih.gov/dirweb/home.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26928 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00).

    Date: November 12, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Susan O. McGuire, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4245, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-435-1426, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel (T32) Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training Grants.

    Date: November 13, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Susan O. McGuire, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4245, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-435-1426, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel NIDA Mentored Clinical Scientists Development Program Award in Drug Abuse and Addiction (K12).

    Date: November 13, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Susan O. McGuire, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4245, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-435-1426, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Exploratory Studies of Smoking Cessation Interventions for People with Schizophrenia (R21/R33).

    Date: November 13, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jose F. Ruiz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Room 4228, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 451-3086, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26929 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Lifespan Human Connectome Project: Development (U01).

    Date: November 6, 2015.

    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Rebecca Steiner Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6149, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-4525, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Silvio O. Conte Centers for Basic or Translational Mental Health Research.

    Date: November 10, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Megan Kinnane, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6148, MSC 9609, Rockville, MD 20852-9609, 301-402-6807, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; National Cooperative Drug Discovery/Development Groups (NCDDG) and National Cooperative Reprogrammed Cell Research Groups (NCRCRG).

    Date: November 12, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Vinod Charles, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6151, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-1606, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26932 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; AIDSRRC Independent SEP.

    Date: November 18, 2015.

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3C100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3E72A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5023, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Molecular Mechanisms of Combination Adjuvants (MMCA) (U01).

    Date: November 19-20, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Room Brookside A & B, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Lakshmi Ramachandra, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, RM 3G33, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5061, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26931 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; SBIR Phase II: ACA Web Platform/Behavioral (5580).

    Date: December 3, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2015. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-26930 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0909] Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0039 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of revisions to the following collection of information: 1625-0039, Declaration of Inspection Before Transfer of Liquid in Bulk. Our ICR[s] describe[s] the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0909] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public participation and request for comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0909], and must be received by December 22, 2015.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Declaration of Inspection Before Transfer of Liquid in Bulk.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0039.

    Summary: A Declaration of Inspection (DOI) documents the transfer of oil and hazardous materials, to help prevent spills and damage to a facility or vessel. Persons-in-charge of the transfer operations must review and certify compliance with procedures specified by the terms of the DOI.

    Need: Title 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) authorizes the Coast Guard to established regulations to prevent the discharge of oil and hazardous material from vessels and facilities. The DOI regulations appear at 33 CFR 156.150 and 46 CFR 35.35-30.

    Respondents: Persons-in-charge of transfers.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 62,514 hours to 77,973 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 18, 2015. Thomas P. Michelli, U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27016 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0910] Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0001 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of revisions to the following collection of information: 1625-0001, Marine Casualty Information & Periodic Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0910] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public participation and request for comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0910], and must be received by December 22, 2015.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Marine Casualty Information & Periodic Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0001.

    Summary: Marine casualty information is needed for Coast Guard investigations of commercial vessel casualties involving death, vessel damage, etc., as mandated by Congress. Chemical testing information is needed to improve CG detection/reduction of drug use by mariners.

    Need: Section 6101 of 46 U.S.C., as delegated by the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Commandant, authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations for the reporting of marine casualties involving death, serious injury, material loss of property, material damage affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel, or significant harm to the environment. It also requires information on the use of alcohol being included in a marine casualty report. Section 7503 of 46 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to deny the issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariner's documents (seaman's papers) to users of dangerous drugs. Similarly, 46 U.S.C. 7704 requires the Coast Guard to revoke such papers unless a holder provides satisfactory proofs that the holder is cured.

    Forms: CG-2692, Report of Marine Casualty, Commercial Diving Casualty, or OCS-related Casualty; CG-2692A, Barge Addendum; CG-2692B, Report of Mandatory Chemical Testing Following a Serious Marine Incident Involving Vessels in Commercial Service; CG-2692C, Personnel Casualty Addendum; CG-2692D, Involved Persons and Witnesses Addendum.

    Why Is The Coast Guard Proposing To Add 2 New Forms: The Coast Guard recently reviewed its regulations and policies with respect to the marine casualty reporting requirements found in 46 CFR part 4. During this project, an evaluation of comments and feedback from the maritime industry and general public, as well as an internal assessment of current statutory and regulatory requirements and Coast Guard policies, identified the need to revise the form used by the public to submit written reports of marine casualties, the form CG-2692 (currently titled Report of Marine Accident, Injury or Death) and its Addendum forms.

    The resulting proposal to revise these forms, which includes revising the title name of the form and taking certain sections of the CG-2692 and moving them to two new Addendum forms (facilitates multiple entry capability not currently available) have been drafted with the following goals in mind:

    • Reduce the overall amount of information required to be entered to submit reports for marine casualties while still meeting all statutory and regulatory requirements.

    • Clarify what types of incidents require the submission of the written report and seek the inclusion of additional information, entered on one or more of the Addendum forms, only when it is necessary.

    • Reformat and organize the information on the forms such that it is more adaptable to the development of an alternate electronic means of submission.

    Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 20,986 hours to 23,586 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 18, 2015. Thomas P. Michelli, U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27019 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0630] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0035 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0035, Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 159). Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0630] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    (3) Fax: 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0630], and must be received by November 23, 2015.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (80 FR 45671, July 31, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

    Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 159).

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.

    Summary: This information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that regulations governing specific types of safety equipment, material and Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) installed on commercial vessels and pleasure craft are met. Manufacturers are required to submit drawings, specifications, and laboratory test reports to the Coast Guard before any approval is given.

    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302 authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety equipment and material regulations. Title 46 CFR parts 159 to 164 prescribe these requirements. Title 33 U.S.C. 1322 authorizes the Coast Guard to establish MSD regulations. Title 33 CFR part 159 prescribes these rules. NVIC 8-01 (Chg 2) prescribes the standards for navigation equipment. This information is used to determine whether manufacturers are in compliance with Coast Guard regulations. When the Coast Guard approves any safety equipment, material or MSD for use on a commercial vessel or pleasure craft, the manufacturer is issued a Certificate of Approval.

    Respondents: Manufacturers of safety equipment, materials and marine sanitation devices.

    Forms: CG-10030, Certificate of Approval.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 58,414 hours to 118,594 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 18, 2015. Thomas P. Michelli, U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27018 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0475] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0095 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0095, Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention and Safety Records, Equivalents/Alternatives and Exemptions without change.

    Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0475] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    (3) Fax: 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2100 2ND STREET SW., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0475], and must be received by November 23, 2015.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005 issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0095.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 45666, July 31, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

    Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention and Safety Records, Equivalents/Alternatives and Exemptions.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0095.

    Summary: The information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that an oil or hazardous material requirement alternative or exemption provides an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution.

    Need: Under 33 U.S.C. 1321 and Executive Order 12777 the Coast Guard is authorized to prescribe regulations to prevent the discharge of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and facilities and to contain such discharges. Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR parts 154-156 are intended to: (1) Prevent or mitigate the results of an accidental release of bulk liquid hazardous materials being transferred at waterfront facilities; (2) ensure that facilities and vessels that use vapor control systems are in compliance with the safety standards developed by the Coast Guard; (3) provide equipment and operational requirements for facilities and vessels that transfer oil or hazardous materials in bulk to or from vessels with a 250 or more barrel capacity; (4) provide procedures for vessel or facility operators who request exemption or partial exemption from the requirements of the pollution prevention regulations.

    Forms: N/A.

    Respondents: Owners and operators of bulk oil and hazardous materials facilities and vessels. The estimated number of respondents is 180.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 1,440 hours a year.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 18, 2015. Thomas P. Michelli, U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27041 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0755] Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0016 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of revisions to the following collection of information: 1625-0016, Welding and Hot Works Permits; Posting of Warning Signs. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard