Federal Register Vol. 80, No.214,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)

Page Range68421-68742
FR Document

80_FR_214
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 68539 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68579 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68444 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CAPDF
80 FR 68444 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CAPDF
80 FR 68445 - Safety Zones; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels, Puget Sound, WAPDF
80 FR 68573 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3PDF
80 FR 68580 - Identifying Sources of Agricultural InnovationPDF
80 FR 68520 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68580 - Notice of a Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 68504 - Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc., Subzone 119I, (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices); Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 68484 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
80 FR 68481 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, LouisianaPDF
80 FR 68486 - Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark CountyPDF
80 FR 68534 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting ProgramPDF
80 FR 68493 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (WIC ITFPS-2) Age 5 Extension StudyPDF
80 FR 68496 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 68536 - National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011 Draft ReportPDF
80 FR 68515 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Advisory PanelPDF
80 FR 68539 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 68540 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 68563 - Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From Canada, China, India, and Oman; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 68447 - Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services From CopaymentsPDF
80 FR 68578 - AmerenUE Combined License Application for Callaway Plant, Unit 2 Nuclear Power PlantPDF
80 FR 68513 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 2016 Research FisheryPDF
80 FR 68479 - Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services From CopaymentsPDF
80 FR 68568 - Privacy Act of 1974; Privacy Act System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 68579 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 68504 - Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical CircumstancesPDF
80 FR 68511 - Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 68508 - Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014PDF
80 FR 68510 - Large Residential Washers From Mexico: Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014PDF
80 FR 68538 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 68547 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of Therapeutics To Treat Brain Injury and Neurodegenerative DiseasePDF
80 FR 68427 - Organization and Functions; Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Farm Credit Administration; Organization of the Farm Credit AdministrationPDF
80 FR 68538 - Notice of Termination; 10414 Polk County Bank, Johnston, IAPDF
80 FR 68539 - Notice of Termination; 10112 First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MissouriPDF
80 FR 68557 - Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rules for Public Lands in New MexicoPDF
80 FR 68492 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 68492 - Notice of Intent To Seek Renewal of an Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 68557 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 68548 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68550 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 68550 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68549 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68551 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68547 - National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 68547 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68549 - Center for Scientific Review Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 68548 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68550 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 68551 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 68550 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68552 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 68512 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Southwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries ResearchPDF
80 FR 68523 - City of Watervliet; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 68534 - Newburgh Hydro, LLC; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
80 FR 68532 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 68527 - City of Osceola, Arkansas v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc., Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 68528 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 68524 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 68520 - Combined Notice of Filings #3PDF
80 FR 68526 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 68531 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 68521 - Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Transco to Charleston Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping MeetingsPDF
80 FR 68526 - Notice of TeleconferencePDF
80 FR 68525 - Notice of Revised Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic PlacesPDF
80 FR 68498 - Yavapai Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 68555 - Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for the Reestablishment of the California Red-Legged Frog in the Santa Monica Mountains, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 68504 - Transportation and Related Equipment; Technical Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 68477 - Airworthiness Directives; Quest Aircraft Design, LLC AirplanesPDF
80 FR 68572 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 68572 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 68518 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 68504 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 68618 - Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC-Corporate Family Transaction ExemptionPDF
80 FR 68554 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 68565 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Bank Collective Investment Funds, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1991-38PDF
80 FR 68566 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Collective Investment Funds Conversion Transactions, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1997-41PDF
80 FR 68519 - Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of VisitorsPDF
80 FR 68567 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund ActivityPDF
80 FR 68618 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 68498 - Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to Section I of the Illinois Field Office Technical Guide for Public Review and CommentPDF
80 FR 68529 - Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
80 FR 68545 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 68540 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 68542 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 68543 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 68563 - Certain Blood Cholesterol Test Strips and Associated Systems Containing Same; Institution of investigationPDF
80 FR 68599 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New TaskPDF
80 FR 68499 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017 New York City Housing and Vacancy SurveyPDF
80 FR 68584 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940PDF
80 FR 68585 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to Exempt Early Stage Companies From Having To Obtain Shareholder Approval Before Issuing Shares for Cash to Related Parties, Affiliates of Related Parties or Entities in Which a Related Party Has a Substantial InterestPDF
80 FR 68590 - Order Exempting Certain Large Traders From the Self-Identification Requirements of Rule 13h-1 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exempting Certain Broker-Dealers From the Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Monitoring Responsibilities Under the RulePDF
80 FR 68583 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7, as They Relate To Order Acceptance TimePDF
80 FR 68581 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rules 21.2, 21.6, and 21.7, as They Relate to Order Acceptance TimePDF
80 FR 68586 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Risk Monitor MechanismPDF
80 FR 68595 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Risk Monitor MechanismPDF
80 FR 68473 - Kiwifruit Grown in California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 68424 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Revision of Exemption RequirementsPDF
80 FR 68517 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 68471 - Radio Frequency Devices, FCC Form 740 Temporary SuspensionPDF
80 FR 68537 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 68421 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California and Imported Table Grapes; Relaxation of Handling RequirementsPDF
80 FR 68552 - Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) MeetingPDF
80 FR 68568 - NASA Advisory Council; Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 68565 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
80 FR 68539 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
80 FR 68602 - BMW of North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 68603 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2009 Ford F-150 Trucks Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
80 FR 68540 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 68480 - Periodic ReportingPDF
80 FR 68440 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Van Nuys, CAPDF
80 FR 68442 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MOPDF
80 FR 68484 - Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions StatementsPDF
80 FR 68448 - Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions StatementsPDF
80 FR 68491 - Management Standards for Hazardous Waste PharmaceuticalsPDF
80 FR 68490 - Hazardous Waste Generator ImprovementsPDF
80 FR 68453 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 68451 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Major Source Permitting State Implementation PlanPDF
80 FR 68458 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Test Methods; Error CorrectionPDF
80 FR 68442 - Public Information, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act RegulationsPDF
80 FR 68500 - Privacy Act System of Records, New System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 68604 - New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)PDF
80 FR 68465 - Disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects, or Objects of Cultural PatrimonyPDF
80 FR 68475 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft EnginesPDF
80 FR 68545 - Minutes of Institutional Review Board Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards; Draft Guidance; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 68437 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 68623 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting RequirementsPDF
80 FR 68434 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 68432 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 68721 - Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General DutiesPDF
80 FR 68497 - Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests; Gunnison County; Colorado; Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area ProjectsPDF
80 FR 68429 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 214 Thursday, November 5, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Exemption Requirements: Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al., 68424-68427 2015-28141 Relaxation of Handling Requirements Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California and Imported Table Grapes, 68421-68424 2015-28136 PROPOSED RULES Increased Assessment Rates: Kiwifruit Grown in California, 68473-68475 2015-28142 Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68492-68493 2015-28238 Intent to Grant Exclusive License, 68492 2015-28239 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2017 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, 68499 2015-28150 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68540-68545 2015-28153 2015-28154 2015-28155 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements, 68624-68719 2015-27931 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA, 68444-68445 2015-28293 Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CA, 68444 2015-28292 Safety Zones: Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels, Puget Sound, WA, 68445-68447 2015-28291 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RULES Public Information, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Regulations, 68442-68444 2015-28063 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 68500-68503 2015-28056
Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 68517-68519 2015-28139 2015-28192
Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 68520 2015-28288 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Major Source Permitting State Implementation Plan, 68451-68453 2015-28097 North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 68453-68458 2015-28098 Ohio; Test Methods; Error Correction, 68458-68465 2015-28095 Tennessee; Knox County Emissions Statements, 68448-68451 2015-28105 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California, San Joaquin Valley; Unified Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District, 68484-68486 2015-28278 Louisiana, 68481-68484 2015-28277 Nevada;, Clark County, 68486-68490 2015-28276 Tennessee; Knox County Emissions Statements, 68484 2015-28106 Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements, 68490-68491 2015-28099 Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals, 68491 2015-28100 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, 68534-68536 2015-28275 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011 Draft Report, 68536-68537 2015-28266 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration RULES Organization and Functions; Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Farm Credit Administration; Organization of the Farm Credit Administration, 68427-68429 2015-28244 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 68429-68432, 68434-68437 2015-27688 2015-27925 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes, 68432-68434 2015-27919 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 68437-68440 2015-27954 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Van Nuys, CA, 68440-68442 2015-28124 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MO; Correction, 68442 2015-28122 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Airplanes, 68477-68479 2015-28198 Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines, 68475-68477 2015-28011 NOTICES New Task Assignments: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 68599-68602 2015-28151 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio Frequency Devices, FCC Form 740 Temporary Suspension, 68471-68472 2015-28138 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68537-68538 2015-28137 Meetings: Technological Advisory Council, 68538 2015-28247 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, 68539 2015-28242 Polk County Bank, Johnston, IA, 68538 2015-28243 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 68539 2015-28370 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68532-68534 2015-28211 Applications: Watervliet, NY, 68523-68524 2015-28213 Combined Filings, 68520-68521, 68524-68529, 68531-68532 2015-28205 2015-28206 2015-28207 2015-28208 2015-28209 Complaints: Osceola, AR v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc., 68527 2015-28210 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Transco to Charleston Project, 68521-68523 2015-28204 Meetings: Clean River Power MR-3, LLC, et al.; Teleconference, 68526 2015-28203 Newburgh Hydro, LLC; Technical Conference, 68534 2015-28212 PJM Interconnection, LLC, et al.; Technical Conference Supplement, 68529-68531 2015-28157 Restricted Service Lists: Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power, et al., 68525-68526 2015-28202 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission RULES Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General Duties, 68722-68742 2015-27914 NOTICES Agreements Filed, 68539 2015-28132 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 68539-68540 2015-28128 2015-28262 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 68540 2015-28261 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Species Permit Applications, 68554-68555 2015-28189 Permit Applications: Safe Harbor Agreement for the Reestablishment of the California Red-Legged Frog in the Santa Monica Mountains, CA, 68555-68557 2015-28200 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68496-68497 2015-28270 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 Age 5 Extension Study, 68493-68496 2015-28273 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Authority Applications: Coleman Co., Inc., (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices), Subzone 119I, 68504 2015-28280 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests; Gunnison County; Colorado; Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects, 68497-68498 2015-27718 Meetings: Yavapai Resource Advisory Committee, 68498 2015-28201 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68557 2015-28236 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68545 2015-28156 Meetings: Minutes of Institutional Review Board Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards, 68545-68547 2015-27986
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 68504 2015-28191 Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 68504 2015-28199 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

RULES Disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects, or Objects of Cultural Patrimony, 68465-68471 2015-28041
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Barium Chloride from the People's Republic of China, 68511-68512 2015-28250 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, 68504-68508 2015-28252 Large Residential Washers from Mexico, 68510-68511 2015-28248 Large Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea, 68508-68509 2015-28249 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Blood Cholesterol Test Strips and Associated Systems Containing Same, 68563 2015-28152 Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, China, India, and Oman, 68563-68565 2015-28260 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 68565 2015-28133 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bank Collective Investment Funds, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption, 68565-68566 2015-28188 Collective Investment Funds Conversion Transactions, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption, 68566-68567 2015-28187 Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Activity, 68567-68568 2015-28185 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Proposed Supplementary Rules for Public Lands in New Mexico, 68557-68562 2015-28240 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: NASA Advisory Council, 68568 2015-28134 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 68568-68572 2015-28254 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Importation Eligibility; Petitions: Nonconforming Model Year 2009 Ford F-150 Trucks, 68603-68604 2015-28129 New Car Assessment Program, 68604-68618 2015-28052 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance; Approvals: BMW of North America, Inc., 68602-68603 2015-28130 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Licenses: Development of Therapeutics to Treat Brain Injury and Neurodegenerative Disease, 68547 2015-28245 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 68548-68550 2015-28224 2015-28227 2015-28228 National Cancer Institute, 68547-68548 2015-28229 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 68551 2015-28231 National Institute on Aging, 68547, 68550 2015-28226 2015-28230 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 68551 2015-28225 National Library of Medicine, 68548-68551 2015-28232 2015-28233 2015-28234 2015-28235 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 2016 Research Fishery, 68513-68515 2015-28257 Requests for Nominations: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel, 68515-68517 2015-28263 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals: Southwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research, 68512-68513 2015-28221 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permit Applications, 68572-68573 2015-28195 2015-28193 2015-28196 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Changes to Section I of the Illinois Field Office Technical Guide, 68498-68499 2015-28183 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, 68519-68520 2015-28186 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Withdrawal by Applicant, 68579-68580 2015-28253 Combined License Applications: AmerenUE; Callaway Plant, Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant; Withdrawal, 68578-68579 2015-28258 License Amendments; Applications: Exelon Generation Co., LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, 68573-68578 2015-28290 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 68579 2015-28297 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Periodic Reporting, 68480-68481 2015-28127 Privacy Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board NOTICES Meetings, 68580 2015-28283 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Requests for Information: Identifying Sources of Agricultural Innovation, 68580-68581 2015-28289 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications for Deregistration under the Investment Company Act, 68584-68585 2015-28149 Orders: Exemption of Certain Large Traders from the Self-Identification Requirements under the Securities Exchange Act, 68590-68595 2015-28147 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 68581-68583 2015-28145 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 68583-68584 2015-28146 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 68586-68590 2015-28144 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 68595-68599 2015-28143 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 68585-68586 2015-28148 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Corporate Family Transaction Exemptions: Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC; Correction, 68618 2015-28190 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Security Advisory Committee, 68552-68554 2015-28135 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 68552 2015-28222 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services from Copayments, 68447 2015-28259 PROPOSED RULES Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services from Copayments; Withdrawal, 68479 2015-28255 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 68618-68621 2015-28184 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 68624-68719 2015-27931 Part III Federal Maritime Commission, 68722-68742 2015-27914 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.

80 214 Thursday, November 5, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 925 and 944 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0031; FV14-925-2 FR] Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California and Imported Table Grapes; Relaxation of Handling Requirements AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule implements a recommendation from the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee) to partially relax the handling requirements currently prescribed under the California table grape marketing order (order) and the table grape import regulation. The Committee locally administers the order and regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. The import regulation is authorized under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and regulates the importation of table grapes into the United States. This final rule relaxes the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in consumer packages known as clamshells weighing five pounds or less. Up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries each. This action provides California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to respond to ongoing marketing opportunities to meet consumer needs.

DATES:

Effective April 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

This final rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including table grapes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.

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

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

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

There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.

This final rule partially relaxes the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for all U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in clamshell consumer packages weighing five pounds or less. Under the revision, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers could consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries each. This final rule provides California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity. The Committee met on November 5, 2013, and conducted an electronic vote on April 8, 2014, in which voters unanimously recommended the partial relaxation for California desert grapes. The change in the import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act.

Section 925.52(a)(1) of the order provides authority to regulate the handling of any grade, size, quality, maturity, or pack of any and all varieties of grapes during the season. Section 925.53 provides authority for the Committee to recommend to USDA changes to regulations issued pursuant to § 925.52. Section 925.55 specifies that when grapes are regulated pursuant to § 925.52, such grapes must be inspected by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure they meet applicable requirements.

Section 925.304(a) of the order's rules and regulations requires grapes to meet the minimum grade and size requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table; or to meet all the requirements of U.S. No. 1 Institutional, except that a tolerance of 33 percent is provided for off-size bunches. The requirements for the U.S. No. 1 Table and U.S. No. 1 Institutional grades are set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type) (7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914) (Standards). To meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table grade, grapes must have a bunch size of at least one-quarter pound.

In 2010, the order's regulations were relaxed with respect to the bunch size requirement specified in the Standards (See, 75 FR 17031, affirmed at 75 FR 34343). This change permitted the use of bunch sizes smaller than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each, in packing consumer clamshell containers containing two pounds net weight or less. Not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers could consist of these smaller bunches. This relaxation was made to allow handlers to take advantage of a new marketing opportunity for grapes packed in small clamshell containers. Prior to the relaxation, handlers were experiencing difficulty filling these containers properly with bunches weighing one-quarter pound or more; smaller bunches were needed to fill the corners of the square container configuration to achieve the desired weight.

Since the order's regulations were amended in 2010, customers nationwide have been increasingly requesting grapes in larger clamshell containers. Handlers experience difficulty properly filling the corners of these larger containers to the desired weights with bunches weighing one-quarter pound or more, similar to the problem they experienced with the smaller 2-pound clamshell containers. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the bunch size requirement in the order's regulations pertaining to U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes be partially relaxed with respect to clamshell containers weighing 5 pounds or less. Under this action, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each. This action allows handlers to continue to respond to increased marketing opportunities. Section 925.304(a) is revised accordingly.

Under section 8e of the Act, minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for table grapes imported into the United States are established under Table Grape Import Regulation 4 (7 CFR 944.503) (import regulation). This relaxation in the California Desert Grape Regulation 6 minimum bunch size requirement requires a corresponding relaxation to the minimum bunch size requirement for imported table grapes. Similar to the domestic industry, this action allows importers the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs. Section 944.503(a)(1) is revised accordingly.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are approximately 14 handlers of southeastern California grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 41 grape producers in the production area. In addition, there are about 102 importers of grapes. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Ten of the 14 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000, according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. Based on information from the Committee and USDA's Market News Service, it is estimated that at least 10 of the 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of grape handlers regulated under the order and about ten of the producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definitions.

Mexico, Chile, and Peru are the major countries that export table grapes to the United States. According to 2014 data from USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), shipments of table grapes imported into the United States from Mexico totaled 17,042,386 18-pound lugs, from Chile totaled 38,466,540 18-pound lugs, and from Peru totaled 5,065,653 18-pound lugs. According to FAS data, the total value of table grapes imported into the United States in 2014 was $1,189,848,000. It is estimated that the average importer received $11.7 million in revenue from the sale of table grapes in 2014. Based on this information, it may be concluded that the average table grape importer is not classified as a small entity.

This final rule revises § 925.304(a) of the rules and regulations of the California desert grape order and § 944.503(a)(1) of the table grape import regulation. This final rule partially relaxes the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in consumer clamshell packages weighing five pounds or less. Under the relaxation, up to 20 percent of the weight of each package may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each. Authority for the change to the California desert grape rules and regulations is provided in §§ 925.52(a)(1) and 925.53. Authority for the change to the table grape import regulation is provided in section 8e of the Act.

There is general agreement in the industry for the need to expand the revised minimum bunch size requirement for grapes packed in these consumer clamshell packages to allow for more packaging options.

Regarding the impact of this final rule on affected entities, this rule provides both California desert grape handlers and importers the flexibility to continue to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs. This marketing opportunity initially existed in the 2009 season, and the minimum bunch size regulations were revised for certain packages weighing two pounds or less on a test basis. In 2010, the regulation was revised permanently for consumer clamshell packages weighing two pounds or less due to the positive market response. This rule expands the revised requirements to include larger consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less. Customers have been requesting larger sized clamshell packages, and this action enables handlers and importers to take advantage of increased market opportunities, which may result in increased shipments of consumer grape packages. This is expected to have a positive impact on producers, handlers, and importers.

No additional alternatives were considered because the 2010 revision produced the desired results. The Committee believes the partial relaxation of the bunch size requirement for grapes packed in larger consumer clamshell packages is appropriate.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule does not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large grape handlers or importers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

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

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Southeastern California grape industry, and all interested persons in the production area were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2013, meeting was a public meeting; and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11346). Copies of the rule were mailed or sent via facsimile to all Committee members and table grape handlers in the production area. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period, ending on April 2, 2015, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

Twelve comments were received during the comment period in response to the proposal. Nine strongly supported the partial relaxation of the handling requirements and three comments were opposed.

One commenter who opposed the partial relaxation specifically for 5-pound clamshells or smaller stated that all consumer packages should be regulated similarly. This commenter also stated that if one clamshell container exceeds the 20 percent tolerance for small bunches, the entire lot is out of grade. The commenter indicated this has caused a problem for him in the past with 2-pound clamshell containers. The commenter also expressed concern that different grape quality standards are in effect at the same time. Finally, this commenter stated that he had not received notification of the November 5, 2013, meeting.

In response to these comments, it is noted that the relaxed bunch size requirements do not apply to all consumer packages. As indicated in the proposed rule, the Committee's recommendation was specific to clamshell containers because smaller clusters of grapes are needed to fill the corners of these square containers. This aspect of the rule and its rationale is identical to the previous regulation that applied to 2-pound containers. Similar issues regarding other consumer containers were not reported or discussed by the Committee when it recommended this change. However, since this rule was initially recommended, the Committee has indicated that additional options may be considered and recommended in the future if appropriate rationale and justification are presented and evaluated.

Regarding the comment concerning the bunch size tolerance, it is acknowledged that one failing container may cause the entire lot to be out of grade. However, it should be noted that the tolerance allows 20 percent of the weight of the container to contain bunches of grapes smaller than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries. This is an allowance, not a requirement. Handlers are not required to use any clusters smaller than one-quarter pound to fill the containers. The relaxed tolerance merely provides handlers with the option and flexibility to utilize the smaller clusters to fill out the clamshell corners. Handlers choosing to utilize this practice should be able to fill the container's corners and fall within the 20 percent tolerance.

Regarding the comment concerning different standards for grapes in the market at the same time, the marketing order only regulates grapes grown in Southeastern California. Thus, the order's regulations have no control over grapes from other areas. This rule is not intended to affect the overall quality of grapes in the marketplace. There is only one marketing order for table grapes. It is intended to allow Southeastern California grape handlers to meet the needs of their customers. Furthermore, industry experience following the previous revision for 2-pound clamshell containers, which is similar to this change, has been positive.

In response to the comment that notification of the November 5, 2013, meeting had not been received, it should be noted that the Committee routinely announces all upcoming meetings at least 3 days before they occur. These announcements are issued to all growers and handlers in the production area. Further, the commenter acknowledged awareness of the open comment period as published in the March 3, 2015, Federal Register notice, and his comment was received in a timely manner and is being addressed herein.

Another commenter who opposed the rule believes that this partial relaxation will allow inferior grapes to be packed and is a visual misrepresentation to both the retailer and the consumer.

This action was recommended by the Committee in response to customer complaints about the empty corners of the larger clamshells. While the tolerance for bunch size will be increased for grapes packed in clamshells containers weighing five pounds or less, all other requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Table Grapes, will still apply. Thus, the increased tolerance is not expected to affect the overall quality of the grapes in the marketplace. The change is intended to provide the industry with increased flexibility to meet customers' needs.

The last commenter suggested that the math in calculating the acceptable tolerance of the one-quarter pound bunch minimum requirement for 5-pound clamshell containers is incorrect and offered various other weight combinations to meet the 5-pound weight requirement of an individual container. He also asserted that the current minimum bunch size requirement for U.S. No. 1 Table Grade grapes is 1.25 pounds. Finally, this commenter claimed that quality will be sacrificed by allowing 20 percent of the 5-pound containers to consist of loose grapes. These assertions are incorrect. The rationale for this rule is not based on a mathematical calculation of grape bunch sizes that could be used to fill containers. The rationale is to allow use of bunches smaller than one-quarter pound but consisting of at least five berries to properly fill the corners of the square containers. Furthermore, the assertion that the bunch size requirement for U.S. No. 1 Table Grade grapes is 1.25 pounds is not accurate. The bunch size requirement for U.S. No. 1 Table Grade grapes is one-quarter pound. This rule provides for up to 20 percent of the weight of clamshell containers to contain grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but the clusters must consist of at least five berries each.

Finally, this rule does not allow 20 percent of the 5-pound container to consist of loose grapes. Loose grapes are not permitted by this relaxation. The 20 percent tolerance is given to limit the number of bunches weighing less than one-quarter pound and each must still contain at least five attached berries. As previously stated, this change is not expected to affect the overall quality of grapes in the marketplace as all of the other requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table grade, as set forth in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Table Grapes, will still apply.

A similar requirement has been in place under the marketing order since 2010 for clamshell containers weighing two pounds or less, and the industry has received positive responses from customers. Since that time, the popularity of clamshell containers has increased, and larger sized clamshell containers are now being used for packaging grapes due to customer's demands.

This action simply applies the same requirements to larger clamshell containers, as desired by customers.

Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

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

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this rule.

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 925

Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR Part 944

Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 925 and 944 are amended as follows:

PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A DESIGNATED AREA OF SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 925 and 944 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Amend § 925.304 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, re-designating paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) and adding new paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
§ 925.304 California Desert Grape Regulation 6.

(a) Grade, size, and maturity. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section, such grapes shall meet the minimum grade and size requirements established in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type 7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914), with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size when packed in individual consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less: Provided that not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each; or

(2) U.S. No. 1 Institutional, with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size. Such tolerance shall be 33 percent instead of 4 percent as is required to meet U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade. Grapes meeting these quality requirements may be marked “DGAC No. 1 Institutional” but shall not be marked “Institutional Pack.”

PART 944—FRUITS; IMPORT REQUIREMENTS 3. Amend § 944.503 by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text, redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) and adding new paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
§ 944.503 Table Grape Import Regulation 4.

(a)(1) Pursuant to section 8e of the Act and Part 944—Fruits, Import Regulations, and except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section, the importation into the United States of any variety of Vinifera species table grapes, except Emperor, Calmeria, Almeria, and Ribier varieties, is prohibited unless such grapes meet the minimum grade and size requirements established in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type 7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914), with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size when packed in individual consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less: not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each; or

(ii) U.S. No. 1 Institutional, with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size. Such tolerance shall be 33 percent instead of 4 percent as is required to meet U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade. Grapes meeting these quality requirements may be marked “DGAC No. 1 Institutional” but shall not be marked “Institutional Pack.”

Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28136 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 930 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0046; FV15-930-1 IR] Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Revision of Exemption Requirements AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to revise the exemption provisions under the marketing order for tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The Board locally administers the order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the production area. This rule changes the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects are eligible for handler diversion credit from one year to three years. This rule also revises the composition of the subcommittee which reviews exemption requests. These changes are intended to encourage handlers to participate in new market and market expansion activities to facilitate sales and help ensure impartiality during the review process.

DATES:

Effective November 6, 2015; comments received by January 4, 2016 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3775, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 930, as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

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

This rule revises the exemption provisions prescribed under the order. This rule expands the availability of diversion credits for new market development and market expansion activities from one year to three years. This rule also revises the composition of the subcommittee which reviews exemption requests. These changes are intended to encourage the use of new market developments and market expansion activities to facilitate sales and to help ensure impartiality during the review process. These changes were unanimously recommended by the Board at its meeting on June 25, 2015.

Section 930.59 of the order authorizes handler diversion. When volume regulation is in effect, handlers may fulfill any restricted percentage requirement in full or in part by acquiring diversion certificates or by voluntarily diverting cherries or cherry products in a program approved by the Board, rather than placing cherries in an inventory reserve.

Section 930.159 of the order's administrative rules specifies methods of handler diversion, including using cherries or cherry products for exempt purposes prescribed under § 930.162. Section 930.162 establishes the terms and conditions of exemption that must be satisfied for handlers to receive diversion certificates for exempt uses. Section 930.162(b) defines the activities which qualify for exemptions under new market development and market expansion and the period for which they are eligible for diversion credit. New market development and market expansion activities include, but are not limited to, sales of cherries into markets that are not yet commercially established, product line extensions, or segmentation of markets along geographic or other definable characteristics.

Section 930.162(d) establishes a Board-appointed subcommittee to review the applications for exemption or renewal of exemption and to either approve or deny the exemption. This section currently specifies that the subcommittee consist of three members, including the Board manager, or a Board member acting in the manager's stead, the public member, and one industry person who is not on the Board.

The order provides for the use of volume regulation to stabilize prices and improve grower returns during periods of oversupply. At the beginning of each season, the Board examines production and sales data to determine whether a volume regulation is necessary and if so, announces free and restricted percentages to limit the volume of tart cherries on the market. Free percentage cherries can be used to supply any available market, including domestic markets for pie filling, water packed, and frozen tart cherries. Restricted percentage cherries can be placed in reserve, or be used to earn diversion credits as prescribed in §§ 930.159 and 930.162 of the order's administrative rules. These activities include, in part, the development of new products, new market development and market expansion, the development of export markets, and charitable contributions.

In 2012, the Board made a series of changes to the volume control provisions to facilitate the marketing of tart cherries and to help lower restrictions during seasons when volume control is implemented. One of these changes was to decrease the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects are eligible for handler diversion credit from three years to one year. The Board thought this decrease would continue to encourage new market development and market expansion projects, while reducing the impact these credits had on volume restriction calculations. At that time, these sales were not included in the average sales figure used to determine optimum supply for volume regulation. The Board anticipated the change would shift more volume to sales helping to reduce the calculated surplus and lower the restricted percentage.

In revisiting this change, the Board recognized that the underlying rationale for having reduced the duration of diversion credit for new market development and market expansion was no longer an issue. Since that change, the method for calculating average sales for the purpose of volume regulation has been adjusted so that only export sales are excluded from the average sales calculation. Consequently, all sales from market development and market expansion activities are now included as sales when calculating a restriction. Therefore, increasing the number of years new market development and market expansion projects are eligible to receive diversion credit from one year to three years will not significantly impact the calculations for free and restricted percentages.

Further, since making this change, participation in new market development and market expansion activities has dropped dramatically. In years prior to changing from three years to one year, applications for new market activities numbered around 20 to 25 a season. For the 2014-15 season, the first season with volume regulation since the change, applications dropped to eight. Handlers stated that it was not worth the time and effort to develop one of these projects if the benefit was only for a single year. It was reported that the shortened time frame did not allow handlers to recoup the resources needed to establish one of these projects.

The Board affirmed its support for new market development and market expansion diversion credit programs. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to change the exemption provisions applicable to handler diversion activities by increasing the number of years that new market development and market expansion activities are eligible for diversion credit back to three years. The Board also noted that projects approved for the 2014-15 season would be allowed to continue and be subject to the new three-year cycle.

This action also revises the composition of the subcommittee appointed to review exemption applications. The subcommittee was formed to assist Board staff members in reviewing and granting exemptions. The subcommittee reviews applications to use restricted cherries for activities related to new product development, new market development and market expansion, the development of export markets, and for experimental purposes. Current rule provisions (§ 930.162(d))state that the subcommittee consists of the manager of the Board or a Board member acting in their stead, the public member, and one industry member who is not on the Board. The Board recommended changing the composition of the subcommittee to help ensure impartiality so that no one affiliated with a handler was part of the review process.

Consequently, the Board recommended revising the subcommittee to consist of three members all of whom are not affiliated with a handler, but have industry knowledge. One of these members shall be the public member or the alternate public member, if available to serve. The subcommittee will also include a similarly qualified alternate should one of the other members be unable to serve.

The Board made several other recommendations for changes to the regulations under the order at its June 25, 2015 meeting. However, these changes will be considered under a separate action.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries during the 2013-14 season was $0.35 per pound, and total shipments were around 289 million pounds. Therefore, average receipts for tart cherry producers were around $168,600, well below the SBA threshold for small producers. In 2014, The Food Institute estimated an f.o.b. price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Using this data, average annual handler receipts were about $6.9 million, which is also below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.

This rule revises § 930.162 of the regulations regarding exemptions by changing the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects are eligible for handler diversion credit from one year to three years. This rule also revises the composition of the subcommittee which reviews exemption requests. These changes are intended to encourage the use of new market development and market expansion activities to facilitate sales and to help ensure impartiality during the review process. The authority for these actions is provided in § 930.59 of the order. These changes were unanimously recommended by the Board at its meeting on June 25, 2015.

It is not anticipated that this action will impose additional costs on handlers or growers, regardless of size. Rather, this should help handlers receive better returns on their new market development and market expansion projects by providing additional time for the handlers to receive diversion credit for those activities. This should provide more opportunity for them to recoup the time and resources required to establish these projects. In addition, changing the number of years that these projects are eligible for diversion credits may provide additional incentive for handlers to develop these programs, and may facilitate additional sales which could improve returns for growers and handlers. Further, the Board does not believe that this change significantly impacts the calculations for free and restricted percentages.

The change in composition of the subcommittee is administrative in nature, and not expected to result in any additional costs.

This rule is expected to benefit the industry. The effects of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers or producers than for larger entities.

The Board discussed alternatives to these changes, including not changing the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects were eligible for diversion credit. The Board agreed that increasing the number of years that new market development and market expansion projects were eligible for diversion credit from one year to three years provides handlers with more incentive to utilize these programs, while not impacting the calculations for free and restricted percentages. Another alternative considered was maintaining the current composition of the subcommittee responsible for reviewing exemption requests. However, the Board wanted to specify that the subcommittee be composed of members who are not affiliated with any handler. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, these alternatives were rejected.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, (Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

Accordingly, this rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

This rule invites comments on changes to the exemption requirements currently prescribed under the order. Any comments received will be considered prior to the finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Board's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The Board would like this in in place as soon as possible should volume regulation be recommended for this season so handlers can consider these changes when making plans; (2) the Board unanimously recommended these changes at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (3) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930

Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as follows:

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 930.162 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (b)(2) and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 930.162 Exemptions.

(b) * * *

(2) * * * In addition, shipments of tart cherries or tart cherry products in new market development and market expansion outlets are eligible for handler diversion credit for a period of three years from the handler's first date of shipment into such outlets.

(d) Review of applications. A Board appointed subcommittee shall review applications for exemption or renewal of exemption and either approve or deny the exemption. The subcommittee shall consist of three members and one alternate, each having no handler affiliation but knowledge of the tart cherry industry, one of whom shall be the public member or the alternate public member if available to serve. Any denial of an application for exemption or renewal of an existing exemption shall be served on the applicant by certified mail and shall state the reasons for the denial. Within 10 days after the receipt of a denial, the applicant may file an appeal, in writing, with the Deputy Administrator, Specialty Crops Program, supported by any arguments and evidence the applicant may wish to offer as to why the application for exemption or renewal of exemption should have been approved. The Deputy Administrator, upon consideration of such appeal, will take such action as deemed appropriate with respect to the application for exemption or renewal of exemption.

Dated: October 30, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28141 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 600 and 606 RIN 3052-AD08 Organization and Functions; Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Farm Credit Administration; Organization of the Farm Credit Administration AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, our or Agency) issues a final rule amending our regulations in order to reflect internal organization changes. Another amendment updates a statutory citation for the Farm Credit Act.

DATES:

This regulation shall become effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. We will publish notice of the effective date in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4124, TTY (703) 883-4056, or Jane Virga, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4071, TTY (703) 883-4056.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Objective

The objective of this final rule is to reflect changes to the FCA's organization and identification of those FCA employees responsible for various functions. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requires, in part, that each Federal agency publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public a description of its organization structure. Another amendment updates the statutory citation for the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act).

We revise the regulations by:

(1) In § 600.1, adding a citation for the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, June 18, 2008, (section 5401-5407), which revised the statutory citation for the Act.

(2) In § 600.4:

(a) Including the Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Office of Information Technology, Designated Agency Ethics Official, and Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion in FCA's organizational structure and a description of their functions; and

(b) Amending the responsibilities of the Office of Management Services to remove the function of administering FCA's information resources management program;

(3) In § 606.670, removing from paragraph (i) the words “Director, Equal Employment Opportunity” and adding in their place the words “Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion Director”.

II. Certain Finding

We have determined that the amendments involve Agency management and personnel and other minor technical changes.

Therefore, the amendments do not constitute a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(a)(2). Under the APA, the public may participate in the promulgation of rules that have a substantial impact on the public. The amendments to our regulations relate to Agency management and personnel and a minor technical change only and have no direct impact on the public and, therefore, do not require public participation.

Even if these amendments were a rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(a)(2) of the APA, we have determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (B) of the APA, an agency may publish regulations in final form when they involve matters of agency organization or where the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As discussed above, this amendment results from recent office reorganizations. Because the amendments will provide accurate and current information on the organization of the FCA and update the citation to the Act, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay amending the regulations.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FCA hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System (System), considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 600

Organization and functions (Government agencies).

12 CFR Part 606

Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and facilities, Individuals with disabilities.

As stated in the preamble, parts 600 and 606 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 600—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.17, 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2252, 2279aa-11).

2. Revise § 600.1 to read as follows:
§ 600.1 The Farm Credit Act.

The Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181 recodified and replaced the prior laws under which the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the institutions of the Farm Credit System (System or FCS) were organized and operated. The prior laws, which were repealed and superseded by the Act, are identified in section 5.40(a) of the Act. Subsequent amendments to the Act and enactment dates are as follows: Public Law 94-184, December 31, 1975; Public Law 95-443, October 10, 1978; Public Law 96-592, December 24, 1980; Public Law 99-190, December 19, 1985; Public Law 99-198, December 23, 1985; Public Law 99-205, December 23, 1985; Public Law 99-509, October 21, 1986; Public Law 100-233, January 6, 1988; Public Law 100-399, August 17, 1988; Public Law 100-460, October 1, 1988; Public Law 101-73, August 9, 1989; Public Law 101-220, December 12, 1989; Public Law 101-624, November 28, 1990; Public Law 102-237, December 13, 1991; Public Law 102-552, October 28, 1992; Public Law 103-376, October 19, 1994; Public Law 104-105, February 10, 1996; Public Law 104-316, October 19, 1996; Public Law 107-171, May 13, 2002; Public Law 110-246, June 18, 2008. The law is codified at 12 U.S.C. 2000, et seq.

3. Revise § 600.4 to read as follows:
§ 600.4 Organization of the Farm Credit Administration.

(a) Offices and functions. The primary offices of the FCA are:

(1) Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. The Office of Congressional and Public Affairs performs Congressional liaison duties and coordinates and disseminates Agency communications.

(2) Office of Examination. The Office of Examination evaluates the safety and soundness of FCS institutions and their compliance with law and regulations and manages FCA's enforcement and supervision functions.

(3) Office of General Counsel. The Office of General Counsel provides legal advice and services to the FCA Chairman, the FCA Board, and Agency staff.

(4) Office of Inspector General. The Office of Inspector General conducts independent audits, inspections, and investigations of Agency programs and operations and reviews proposed legislation and regulations.

(5) Office of Regulatory Policy. The Office of Regulatory Policy develops policies and regulations for the FCA Board's consideration; evaluates regulatory and statutory prior approvals; manages the Agency's chartering activities; and analyzes policy and strategic risks to the System.

(6) Office of Management Services. The Office of Management Services provides financial management services. It administers the Agency's human resources management program, contracts, procurement, mail services, and payroll.

(7) Office of Secondary Market Oversight. The Office of Secondary Market Oversight regulates and examines the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation for safety and soundness and compliance with law and regulations.

(8) Secretary to the Board. The Secretary to the Board serves as the parliamentarian for the Board and keeps permanent and complete records and minutes of the acts and proceedings of the Board.

(9) Office of the Chief Operating Officer. The Chief Operating Officer has broad responsibility for planning, directing, and controlling the operations of the Offices of Management Services, Information Technology, Examination, Regulatory Policy, and General Counsel in accordance with the operating philosophy and policies of the FCA Board.

(10) Designated Agency Ethics Official. The Designated Agency Ethics Official is designated by the FCA Chairman to administer the provisions of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, to coordinate and manage FCA's ethics program, and to provide liaison to the Office of Government Ethics with regard to all aspects of FCA's ethics program.

(11) Office of Information Technology. The Office of Information Technology manages information resources management program and delivers the Agency's information technology, data analysis infrastructure, and the security supporting Agency technology resources.

(12) Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion. The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion manages and directs the Agency-wide Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Employment Opportunity Program for FCA and FCSIC. The office serves as the chief liaison with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management on all Equal Employment Opportunity, diversity, and inclusion issues. The office provides counsel and leadership to Agency management to carry out its continuing policy and program of nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and diversity.

(b) Additional Information. You may obtain more information on the FCA's organization by visiting our Web site at http://www.fca.gov. You may also contact the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs:

(1) In writing at FCA, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090;

(2) By email at [email protected]; or

(3) By telephone at (703) 883-4056.

PART 606—ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 4. The authority citation for part 606 continues to read as follows: Authority:

29 U.S.C. 794.

§ 606.670 [Amended]
5. Amend § 606.670 by removing the words “Director, Equal Employment Opportunity” and adding in their place, the words “Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion Director” in paragraph (i).
Dated: October 30, 2015. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-28244 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4211; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-150-AD; Amendment 39-18311; AD 2015-22-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of spoiler and elevator computer (SEC) latent failures; an undetected loss of a SEC in flight will result in loss in redundancy for elevator control. This AD requires revising the After Start Normal Procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide procedures that will address this loss of redundancy. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to address loss of redundancy of SEC 1 and SEC 2. A SEC failure, in conjunction with a loss of trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) electrical control due to jamming or rupture, could result in failure of an elevator and aileron computer, and consequent loss of elevator control and reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective November 20, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 20, 2015.

We must receive comments on this AD by December 21, 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 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. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4211.

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-2015-4211; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this 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:

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0191, dated September 22, 2015 (correction September 25, 2015) (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

With the introduction of new Spoiler and Elevator Computer (SEC) hardware C Part Number (P/N) B372CAM0100 with software standards 122, 124 and 125 (identified by P/N B372CAM0101, P/N B372CAM0102 and P/N B372CAM0103, respectively), some airlines have reported receiving maintenance messages, e.g. “SEC OR WIRING FROM L or R ELEV POS MON XDCR” and/or “SEC OR WIRING FROM G or Y ELEV POS XDCR”, which are associated with servo control or elevator transducer monitoring. Such messages are triggered by a short data inconsistency due to power transients, when the engines are started.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an undetected loss of redundancy during flight if an affected SEC cannot control the related elevator servo control(s), possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

It was determined that, to recover full redundancy, a reset of SEC 1 and SEC 2 must be done after engines start and Airbus have developed an Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revision (TR), published as TR 572 Issue 1.1, to provide the necessary flight crew procedure.

Required actions include revising the After Start Normal Procedures section of the AFM to provide procedures that will address this loss of redundancy. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4211.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual. The service information describes the reset of SEC 1 and SEC 2 that must be done after engines start. 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 and Requirements of This 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a SEC failure in conjunction with a loss of THS electrical control due to jamming or rupture, could result in failure of an elevator and aileron computer, and consequent loss of elevator control and reduced control of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4211; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-150-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $81,515, or $85 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 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 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.

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): 2015-22-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18311. Docket No. FAA-2015-4211; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-150-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective November 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of spoiler and elevator computer (SEC) latent failures; an undetected loss of a SEC in flight will result in loss in redundancy for elevator control. This AD requires revising the After Start Normal Procedures section of the airplane fight manual (AFM) to provide procedures that will address this loss of redundancy. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to address loss of redundancy of SEC 1 and SEC 2. A SEC failure, in conjunction with a loss of trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) electrical control due to jamming or rupture, could result in failure of an elevator and aileron computer, and consequent loss of elevator control and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual Revision

For airplanes equipped with SEC hardware C part number (P/N) B372CAM0100 with software standard 122 (P/N B372CAM0101), 124 (P/N B372CAM0102), or 125 (P/N B372CAM0103), on SEC position 1 or 2, or both: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the After Start Normal Procedures section of the AFM to include the statement specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD, or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual, into the applicable AFM.

Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—AFM Temporary Revision AFTER START NORMAL PROCEDURE After both engines start: Turn OFF then ON SEC 1 and SEC 2 one after another. Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

When a statement identical to that in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD has been included in the After Start Normal Procedures section of the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, may be removed from the AFM.

Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin OEB-50 provides additional information on the subject addressed by this AD.

(h) Optional Modification

Modification of an airplane by installation of SEC hardware C with software standard 126 (P/N B372CAM0104) (Airbus Modification 161208) allows removal of the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, do not install SEC hardware C P/N B372CAM0100 with software standard 122 (P/N B372CAM0101), 124 (P/N B372CAM0102), or 125 (P/N B372CAM0103), on SEC position 1 or 2, or both, on any airplane, unless the AFM of the airplane is revised concurrently with that installation, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 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] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

(k) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

(l) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0191, dated September 22, 2015 (corrected September 25, 2015), for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4211.

(m) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR572, Issue 1.0, dated August 13, 2015, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

(4) 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.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-27688 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1425; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-185-AD; Amendment 39-18312; AD 2015-22-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the circumferential fuselage splice at fuselage-station (FS) 695 is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires an inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of certain stringers, inspection for cracking and modification of certain fastener holes common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of the circumferential fuselage splice at FS 695, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective December 10, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770-494-5444; fax: 770-494-5445; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1425.

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-2015-1425; 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 Docket 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:

Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; 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 certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2015 (80 FR 30391). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that a certain circumferential fuselage splice is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of certain stringers, inspection for cracking and modification of certain fastener holes common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of a certain circumferential fuselage splice, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 30391, May 28, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 30391, May 28, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 30391, May 28, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014. This service bulletin describes procedures for doing the following actions:

• A general visual inspection (GVI) for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of stringers 1-7 and 66-72, and corrective actions if necessary.

• At stringers 1-7 and 66-72, removing the four rivets common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice and doing a bolt hole eddy current (BHEC) inspection or an equivalent inspection procedure for cracking in each of the fastener holes, and corrective actions if necessary.

• Corrective actions for cracked holes include reaming to the maximum permissible hole diameter of the next larger size rivet. If a crack indication remains after reaming, this service information specifies repairing the cracked stringer.

• If a severed stringer is found during the GVI, doing related investigative actions of an eddy current surface scan inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin at the skin-to-stringer attachments immediately forward and aft of the stringer break and confirming skin cracks with a dye penetrant inspection. Corrective actions include repairing the severed stringer or skin cracks.

• For holes without crack indications, other specified actions include modifying the fastener holes by reaming to a certain maximum permissible hole diameter of the same size rivet and installing replacement fasteners; or if the original hole is larger than the maximum permissible diameter, installing the next rivet size and type.

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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspections and Modification 18 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,530 $5,000 $6,530 $26,120

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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, 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): 2015-22-07 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company: Amendment 39-18312 ; Docket No. FAA-2015-1425; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-185-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 10, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1001 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the circumferential fuselage splice at fuselage-station (FS) 695 is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of the circumferential fuselage splice at FS 695, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections, Modification, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    Before the accumulation of 38,200 total flight hours or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a general visual inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of stringers 1-7 and 66-72; remove the four rivets common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice and do a bolt hole eddy current inspection or an equivalent inspection procedure for cracking in each of the fastener holes; modify the fastener holes; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions and other specified actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions and other specified actions before further flight. If any repairs exceed the repair limits specified in Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (h) Corrective Action

    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any corrosion or previous repair is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any loose or distressed fastener is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (i) Exception

    Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected].

    (l) 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) Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770-494-5444; fax: 770-494-5445; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.

    (4) You may view this service information at 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.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27919 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0244; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-127-AD; Amendment 39-18313; AD 2015-22-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a cracked upper cardan in the main landing gear (MLG). This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to reduce the life limits for the MLG upper cardan for certain installations. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper cardan in the MLG, which could result in MLG collapse and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective December 10, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0244; or in person at the Docket 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.

    For 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. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0244.

    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:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11964).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During an A320-200 77T main landing gear (MLG) fatigue test by Messier Bugatti-Dowty (MBD), an upper cardan was found with a crack, emanating from the grease hole/main lug intersection. The affected upper cardan, Part Number (P/N) 201163620, is listed in the applicable Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1 with a demonstrated fatigue life of 60,000 landings.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to MLG upper cardan failure, possibly resulting in MLG collapse and subsequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    Prompted by these findings and further to analysis, it has been decided to reduce the life limit for certain installations of the P/N 201163620 MLG upper cardan.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires implementation of the new life limits, as applicable, and replacement of any affected MLG upper cardan units that have already exceeded the reduced limit.

    The reduced life limits for the affected MLG upper cardan are expected to be incorporated in a next revision of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0244-0003. Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015) be revised so the initial compliance time for replacing the MLG upper cardan is extended and corresponds to that of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014. EASA AD 2014-0141 specifies an initial compliance time of “within 3 months” after the effective date of that EASA AD and the proposed AD specified an initial compliance time of prior to the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5), or within 30 days after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.

    We agree with the commenter's request. In consideration of the average utilization rate of affected U.S. operators, the practical aspects of an orderly modification of the U.S. fleet during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of required modification parts, we have determined that a 3 month initial compliance time is appropriate for replacing the MLG upper cardan. We have changed paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

    Request To Reference Next Higher Part Number Assembly

    Lufthansa Technik requested that the part number for the next higher assembly of MLG cardan part number (P/N) 201163620 be referenced in the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015). The commenter stated that the NPRM and corresponding EASA AD 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014, reference P/N 201163620, but that part number is not identified in the aircraft illustrated parts catalog (AIPC). The commenter is concerned that if operators only look in the AIPC to see if P/N 201163620 is identified, and it is not there, they may falsely think that their airplanes would not be affected by the NPRM.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Although MLG cardan P/N 201163620 is not included in the AIPC, it is identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, which is part of the approved type design for these airplanes. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Clarification of Parts Installation Limitation

    In paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015), we referred to applicable life limits in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of the proposed AD. For airplanes other than those identified paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of the proposed AD, the life limit is in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011, as specified in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD. In addition, if a part is transferred between airplanes, operators must adjust the life limit using the method specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011, as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. We have clarified paragraph (j) of this AD by also referring to paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(5) of this AD.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 11964, March 5, 2015).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011. This document provides revised instructions and life limits for airworthiness limitations items. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $72,335, or $85 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 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 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.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0244; 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 street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    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): 2015-22-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18313. Docket No. FAA-2015-0244; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-127-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 10, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    For airplanes with configurations specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD: Paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the life limit specified in paragraph (n)(1) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), for airplanes having a main landing gear (MLG) upper cardan part number (P/N) 201163620.

    (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 A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a cracked upper cardan in the main landing gear (MLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the upper cardan in the MLG, which could result in MLG collapse and subsequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision to Maintenance or Inspection Program

    For airplanes having a MLG upper cardan part number (P/N) 201163620: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the applicable life limits for the MLG upper cardan P/N 201163620 specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD and the life limit clarifications specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance time for replacing the MLG upper cardan is prior to the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing this revision terminates the life limit required by paragraph (n)(1) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015), for the MLG upper cardan P/N 201163620 for that airplane only.

    (1) For Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, pre-Airbus Modification 26644, excluding corporate jets post-Airbus Modification 28238, 28162, and 28342: The life limit is 50,590 total flight cycles.

    (2) For Airbus Model A319 series airplanes, post-Airbus Modification 26644, excluding corporate jets post-Airbus Modification 28238, 28162, and 28342: The life limit is 56,480 total flight cycles.

    (3) For Airbus Model A320 series airplanes pre-Airbus Modification 26644 having weight variant (WV) WV011, WV012, WV016, or WV018: The life limit is 50,590 total flight cycles.

    (4) For Airbus Model A320 series airplanes post-Airbus Modification 26644, having WV011, WV012, WV016, or WV018: The life limit is 56,480 total flight cycles.

    (5) For Airbus Model A320 series airplanes post-Airbus Modification 26644, having WV015 or WV017: The life limit is 42,140 total flight cycles.

    (h) Additional Life Limit Clarifications

    (1) The life limits specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD are total flight cycles accumulated by the MLG since first installation on an airplane.

    (2) The life limits specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD are applicable only for the airplane model, configuration and WV specified in those paragraphs.

    (3) If a part is transferred between airplanes having a different life limit for the MLG unit, adjust the life limit using the method specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.

    Note 1 to paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(5) of this AD:

    Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011, is already required by paragraph (n) of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871, January 26, 2015).

    (4) A MLG unit on which Airbus Modification 26644 is installed is also known as “enhanced” landing gear and is identified as P/N 201582xxx Leg and Dressing Series. A MLG unit that does not have Airbus Modification 26644 installed is identified as P/N 201375xxx Leg and Dressing Series. (The xxx designation is a placeholder for numbers).

    (5) For airplanes with configurations not specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, the life limit for the MLG unit is specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.

    (i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, a MLG upper cardan having P/N 201163620 may be installed on an airplane, provided the part life has not exceeded the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, and paragraph (h)(5) of this AD, and is replaced with a serviceable part prior to exceeding the applicable life limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, and paragraph (h)(5) of this AD.

    (k) 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] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0141, dated June 4, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0244.

    (m) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011. The revision level of this document is identified on only the title page and in the Record of Revisions. The revision date is not identified on the title page of this document.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For 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.

    (4) 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.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27925 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0649; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-132-AD; Amendment 39-18314; AD 2015-22-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during manufacturing inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. This AD requires drilling a hole and installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective December 10, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0649.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0649; 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 Docket 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:

    Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2014 (79 FR 56682). The NPRM was prompted by reports of missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during manufacturing inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. The NPRM proposed to require drilling a hole and installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Supportive Comment

    United Airlines stated that it concurs with the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014), and agrees that the detection and correction of the missing or misaligned plugs will maintain a higher level of safety.

    Request To Delay Issuance of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014)

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that we delay issuance of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) until Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014 (referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions), can be revised. ANA noted that the service information specifies using a stringer plug removal/installation tool, having tool number (T/N) MIT140Z4372-3; however, this tool does not work well for doing the actions. ANA provided the following reasons to substantiate its request:

    • For the instructions specified in Task 1 of this service information, the connecting tube on the tool (T/N 140Z4372-8/-15) interferes with the fasteners at the section 41/43 joint; therefore, the tool cannot be inserted into the stringers. The connecting tube needs to be shortened in length and trimmed to taper.

    • For the instructions specified in Task 3 of the service information, the tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) cannot be inserted at stringers 30R through 35R, adjacent to the cargo door, because it won't bend at the location adjacent to the stringer end and frame.

    • For the instructions specified in Task 3 of the service information, the tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) is inserted into the stringer from station (STA) 1593 to STA 1209, and the stringer length is 384 inches. This tool has five extension rods that are 300 inches, and six extension rods that are 350 inches, respectively; therefore, additional rods are necessary.

    • The tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) has a head piece (T/N 140Z4372-4/-5) and a push rod (T/N 140Z4372-6/-14) with a retaining pin hole. However, the retaining pin is not centered on the push rod and head piece, so the head piece detaches from the push rod during the plug removal/installation, and it takes an extraordinary amount of time to remove the head piece from the stringer. The retaining pin should be centered on the push rod and head piece in order to alleviate these issues.

    Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. This service information provides clarification to the instructions, which addresses the commenter's concerns. In addition, the stringer plug removal/installation tool, having T/N MIT140Z4372-3, has been redesigned and retains the same part number. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. We have also added new paragraph (h) to this AD to give credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014.

    Request To Add Use of Fabricated Tool in Service Information Instructions

    ANA asked that we allow using an alternate stringer plug removal/installation tool, fabricated by ANA, and include the tool in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014, when the service information is revised. ANA added that, due to the issues previously identified, it has been using this alternate stringer plug removal/installation tool to remove existing plugs and install new plugs, with concurrence from Boeing.

    We acknowledge the commenter's request to allow its fabricated tool to be included in the service information instructions. However, as noted previously, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015, has been issued; and the stringer plug removal/installation tool, having T/N MIT140Z4372-3, has been redesigned and retains the same part number. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Add Instructions to Service Information for Clarification

    ANA asked that we add certain instructions to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014. ANA provided the following reasons to substantiate its request:

    • For the instructions specified in Task 1, steps 2 and 3, of the service information, it specifies drilling a hole on stringers S-34L and S-35L. Removal of the environmental control system (ECS) cargo air insulated riser duct is necessary to ensure workspace for drilling at S-34L and S-35L. ANA asked that these removal and installation instructions be added when the service information is revised.

    • For the instructions specified in Task 2, step 3, of the service information, it specifies bonding new plugs in the stringers; however, the stringer and duct installed at the aft face of STA 825 frame web are adjacent to the stringer, so it is not possible to apply a resin through the moisture vent hole. Additionally, the tie-up for supporting the duct should be cut and removed. ANA asked that instructions be added to cut the tie-up and move the duct if the access conditions identified in the service information are insufficient.

    Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. This service information provides clarification to the instructions identified, which addresses the commenter's concerns. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    ANA also stated that each task in the service information necessitates confirmation that using a Sharpie marker, or similar, to mark the centerline of the top surface of the new plug to help locate the plug at the position of a stringer vent hole is permitted. However, ANA found that the plug had rotated to 90 degrees; but the centerline of the top surface of the new plug was at the position of a stringer vent hole. ANA asked that instructions be added to the service information specifying that after plug installation operators should verify the new plug location is correct with a mirror or borescope.

    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. Boeing has incorporated instructions into Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015, which allow the use of a mirror or borescope to check the proper positioning of a plug before applying the bond. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    ANA also stated that the instructions specified in Task 1, Note 9, of the service information, specify using a 3-step drill process. The first step is to drill a new pilot hole of 1/8 inch; the second step is to drill a new pilot hole of 3/16 inch; and the third step is to ream to a final diameter of 0.235 to 0.265 inch. Step 2.3 is required for compliance (RC), so no deviation of the procedure is permitted. ANA added that to maintain the 3-step drill process, a special reamer is needed. ANA noted that the primary objective should be preparing the final diameter hole, not the number of drilling steps, and asked that the 3-step drill process be removed, and more steps to the drill process be allowed.

    We agree that alternative methods may be allowed for drilling the hole specified in Task 1, Note 9, because the intent of the 3-step drill process is to effectively ream each hole to its final diameter. Boeing has incorporated instructions allowing additional drill steps outside of the 3-step drill process in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Clarify Certain Language in the SUMMARY and Discussion Sections of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) and Paragraph (e) of the Proposed AD

    Boeing asked that we clarify the reason for the unsafe condition identified in the SUMMARY and Discussion sections of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014), and paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the language “reports of missing bonded plugs” should be “reports of missing plugs.” Boeing noted that bonding the plugs into the stringers is the solution, not the issue. Boeing also stated that the language “certain stringers of the forward electrical equipment (EE) bay of the lower lobe cargo compartments” should be “certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments.” Boeing noted that the issue occurred in both the forward and aft cargo bilge areas, not just the forward compartment, and added that referencing the forward EE bay is not relevant to the issue.

    Boeing also asked that we clarify the description of the unsafe condition identified in the SUMMARY and Discussion sections of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014), and paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the language “reports of misaligned bonded plugs” should be “misaligned plugs.” Boeing noted that bonding the plugs into the stringers is the solution, not the issue.

    In addition, Boeing asked that we delete “the cause was determined to be miscalculated pressure exposures during design” and “could result in missing or misaligned bonded plugs which” from the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014). Boeing stated that there is no data showing the cause of the plugs to disengage was miscalculated pressure exposures.

    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns and provide the following. We agree that the word “bonded” should be removed from the language in the SUMMARY section of this final rule, and in paragraph (e) of this AD, for clarification; we also agree that the language “the forward EE bay” should be removed throughout this AD, for the reasons provided by the commenter; we have changed all applicable sections accordingly.

    In addition, we acknowledge the commenter's request that the cause of disengagement of the plugs is incorrect and should be removed from the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014). We agree that there is no data showing the cause of the plugs to disengage was miscalculated pressure exposures; this issue stems from high pressure exposures associated with flight testing pressure profiles through pressurization checks during production. However, the Discussion section of the of the NPRM is not restated in this final rule; therefore, we have not changed this final rule in regard to the language in that section.

    Request To Include Detailed Rework Instructions

    Boeing asked that we include detailed rework instructions in the actions required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014). Boeing noted that the following language should be added before the first sentence: “Ensure all 80 stringer plugs are installed, and apply adhesive to them to ensure they cannot become dislodged or misaligned. At 2 locations, this will require rework beyond a nominal application of adhesive to the stringer plug. The rework at the unique locations will involve the following. . . .”

    We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, the rework instructions are described in detail in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. Since this AD requires accomplishing the actions in accordance with this service information, there is no need to describe those instructions in detail in paragraph (g) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Boeing asked that we extend the compliance time for the bonded plug installation from 12 to 24 months. Boeing stated that a conservative recalculation of the Boeing risk analysis due to the condition being resolved in production, and based on a static fleet size of 88 airplanes, resulted in a control program time of 66 months. Boeing added that a service bulletin compliance time of 24 months will allow sufficient time for operator planning, scheduling, and accomplishment of the retrofit within the risk-based control program time.

    We do not agree to extend the compliance time to 24 months. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of doing the bonded plug installation within an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. Under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously—and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. The service information describes procedures for drilling a hole and installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Bonded plug installations 100 work-hours × $85 per hour = $8,500 $3,466 $11,966 Up to $35,898

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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, 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): 2015-22-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18314; Docket No. FAA-2014-0649; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-132-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 10, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during manufacturing inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Bonded Plug Installation

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Drill a hole in stringers S-34L and S-35L, remove the plugs, and install and bond new plugs in the lower lobe cargo compartments, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.

    (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 Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6596; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (k) 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) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) 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.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27954 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1138; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-3] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Van Nuys, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, to accommodate standard instrument approach procedures for the airport. The geographic coordinates of the satellite airports also would be adjusted for Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace as well as noting a name change for Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, February 4, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On August 19, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA (80 FR 50235). 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 D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and 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 amends Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA. A review of the airspace revealed additional Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace necessary to support instrument arrival procedures at the airport. Class D airspace extends upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. The geographic coordinates for Bob Hope Airport and Whiteman Airport are adjusted to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical data base.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only 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 5000 Class D Airspace AWP CA D Van Nuys, CA [Modified] Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA (Lat. 34°12′35″ N., long. 118°29′24″ W.) Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA (Lat. 34°12′03″ N., long. 118°21′31″ W.) Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA (Lat. 34°15′34″ N., long. 118°24′48″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AWP CA E2 Van Nuys, CA [Modified] Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA (Lat. 34°12′35″ N., long. 118°29′24″ W.) Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA (Lat. 34°12′03″ N., long. 118°21′31″ W.) Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA (Lat. 34°15′34″ N., long. 118°24′48″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 27, 2015. Tracey Johnson, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28124 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 Docket No. FAA-2015-0842; Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-2 Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects an error in a final rule published in the Federal Register of October 19, 2015, by amending the magnetic bearing to a true bearing in the Class E surface area airspace description for Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO.

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending Class E surface area airspace at multiple airports in Missouri, including Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO (80 FR 63085 October 19, 2015). Subsequent to publication the FAA identified that a magnetic bearing was used to describe parameters of the Class E surface area airspace for Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO. This action replaces the magnetic bearing with a true bearing.

    Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63085) FR Doc. 2015-26273, the bearing in the regulatory text on page 63086, column 3, line 9, is corrected as follows:

    § 71.1 [Amended] ACE MO E2 Farmington, MO (Corrected)
    Remove “202° bearing” and add in its place “204° bearing”
    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 2015. Walter Tweedy, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28122 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary 15 CFR Part 4 [Docket No. 150324296-5964-03] RIN 0605-AA38 Public Information, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Regulations AGENCY:

    Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends the Department of Commerce's (Department) Privacy Act regulations under the Privacy Act. The revisions add a new Privacy Act System of Records, entitled “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,” to the General and Specific exemptions sections of the Department's Privacy Act regulations. The Privacy Act requires agencies to identify records exempted from a provision of the General and/or Specific exemptions sections of the Act. This document helps the Department comply with this requirement.

    DATES:

    These amendments are effective December 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Toland, Department Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave.NW., Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information

    On May 8, 2015, the Department of Commerce published a proposed rule revising its existing regulations at 15 CFR part 4 under the FOIA and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. See 80 FR 26499. This rule proposed revisions to the Department's regulations under the Privacy Act. In particular, the action would amend the Department's Privacy Act regulations regarding applicable exemptions to reflect new Department wide systems of records notices published since the last time the regulations were updated. The revisions of the Privacy Act regulations in subpart B of part 4 incorporate changes to the language of the regulations in the following provisions: § 4.33 (General exemptions); and § 4.34 (Specific exemptions).

    Interested persons were afforded the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through submission of written comments to the proposed rule during the 30-day open comment period. On June 29, 2015, the Department reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days because not all interested parties may have been given appropriate notification about this proposed new system of records, as well as time to respond with comments prior to the closing date of the original public comment period of June 8, 2015. See 80 FR 36397.

    Public Comments

    The Department received one public submission in response to the proposed rulemaking, which was similar or identical in some cases to the ones submitted by the commenter for the new Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System.” In particular, the commenter suggested that the “proposed changes [to this rule] are expressly intended to exempt the Department's proposed new system of records entitled `COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,' set forth in 80 FR 26534, published May 8, 2015, from most provisions of the Privacy Act.” The commenter also indicated that the Department provided insufficient business justification for this system of records. The commenter further submitted the view that the routine uses listed in this notice may result in matching programs as described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(8), adding that if the Department engages in any matching program, it must follow matching program requirements outlined in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o).

    The Department would like to thank the commenter for submitting comments in response to the proposed rulemaking. While due consideration has been given to the comments received, since they were similar or identical to those received for the proposed Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,” and the comments did not address any substantive changes to this proposed rule, the Department will not address the comments in this notice. Instead, responses to the commenter's comments can be found under the Public Comments and Responses section of the final notice for COMMERCE/DEPT-25.

    With this action, the Department's Privacy Act regulations are revised regarding applicable exemptions to reflect new Department wide systems of records notices published since the last time the regulations were updated. Specifially, the revisions of the Privacy Act regulations in subpart B of part 4 incorporate changes to the language of the regulations in the following provisions: § 4.33 (General exemptions); and § 4.34 (Specific exemptions).

    Classification

    It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Chief Counsel for Regulation for the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule amends the Department's Privacy Act regulations regarding applicable exemptions to reflect new Department wide systems of records notices published since the last time the regulations were updated. These amendments are administrative in nature and will not impose a financial impact on anyone, does not change the way any acts or the way anyone is treated. Further, the applicable exemptions apply to information collected to establish identity, accountability, and audit control of electronic or other digital certificates of assigned personnel who require access to Department of Commerce electronic and physical assets. The information collected is provided on a voluntary basis, with no cost incurred by individuals. Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

    Paperwork Reduction Act: This document does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 4

    Freedom of information, Privacy.

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Catrina D. Purvis, Department of Commerce, Chief Privacy Officer and Director for Open Government.

    For reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce amends 15 CFR part 4 as follows:

    PART 4—DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 41 U.S.C. 3101; Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1950.

    2. Amend § 4.33 by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 4.33 General exemptions.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Access Control and Identity Management System—COMMERCE/DEPT-25. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), these records are hereby determined to be exempt from all provisions of the Act, except 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i). These exemptions are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the law enforcement activity, to protect confidential sources of information, to fulfill promises of confidentiality, to maintain the integrity of the law enforcement process, to avoid premature disclosure of the knowledge of criminal activity and the evidentiary bases of possible enforcement actions, to prevent interference with law enforcement proceedings, to avoid disclosure of investigative techniques, and to avoid endangering law enforcement personnel.

    3. Amend § 4.34 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2)(i) introductory text, (b)(2)(i)(C), (b)(2)(i)(F), and (b)(4)(i) to read as follows:
    § 4.34 Specific exemptions.

    (a)(1) Certain systems of records under the Act that are maintained by the Department may occasionally contain material subject to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), relating to national defense and foreign policy materials. The systems of records published in the Federal Register by the Department that are within this exemption are: COMMERCE/BIS-1, COMMERCE/ITA-2, COMMERCE/ITA-3, COMMERCE/NOAA-11, COMMERCE-PAT-TM-4, COMMERCE/DEPT-12, COMMERCE/DEPT-13, COMMERCE/DEPT-14, and COMMERCE/DEPT-25.

    (b) The specific exemptions determined to be necessary and proper with respect to systems of records maintained by the Department, including the parts of each system to be exempted, the provisions of the Act from which they are exempted, and the justification for the exemption, are as follows:

    (1) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). The systems of records exempt hereunder appear in paragraph (a) of this section. The claims for exemption of COMMERCE/DEPT-12, COMMERCE/BIS-1, COMMERCE/NOAA-5, and COMMERCE/DEPT-25 under this paragraph are subject to the condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b) is held to be invalid.

    (2)(i) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). The systems of records exempt (some only conditionally), the sections of the Act from which exempted, and the reasons therefor are as follows:

    (C) Fisheries Law Enforcement Case Files—COMMERCE/NOAA-5, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(2) is held to be invalid;

    (F) Access Control and Identity Management System—COMMERCE/DEPT-25, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(4) is held to be invalid;

    (4)(i) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). The systems of records exempt (some only conditionally), the sections of the Act from which exempted, and the reasons therefor are as follows:

    (A) Applications to U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA)—COMMERCE/MA-1;

    (B) USMMA Midshipman Medical Files—COMMERCE/MA-17;

    (C) USMMA Midshipman Personnel Files—COMMERCE/MA-18;

    (D) USMMA Non-Appropriated Fund Employees—COMMERCE/MA-19;

    (E) Applicants for the NOAA Corps—COMMERCE/NOAA-1;

    (F) Commissioned Officer Official Personnel Folders—COMMERCE/NOAA-3;

    (G) Conflict of Interest Records, Appointed Officials—COMMERCE/DEPT-3;

    (H) Investigative and Inspection Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(3) is held to be invalid;

    (I) Investigative Records—Persons within the Investigative Jurisdiction of the Department COMMERCE/DEPT-13;

    (J) Litigation, Claims, and Administrative Proceeding Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-14; and

    (K) Access Control and Identity Management System—COMMERCE/DEPT-25, but only on condition that the general exemption claimed in § 4.33(b)(4) is held to be invalid.

    [FR Doc. 2015-28063 Filed 11-3-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0962] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Alameda, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the High Street Drawbridge across the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, mile 6.0, at Alameda, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace the center span lock. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from November 5, 2015 through 6:30 p.m. on November 25, 2015. For the purpose of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 2:30 p.m. on October 21, 2015 until November 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0962] is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Alameda County Public Works Agency has requested a temporary change to the operation of the High Street Drawbridge, mile 6.0, over Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, at Alameda, CA. The bridge provides a vertical clearance of 16 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.181. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

    The bridge will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position, October 26, 2015 through November 25, 2015, Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., due to replacement of the center span lock. During nights and weekends, the bridge will be able to open upon 2 hours advance notice with single leaf openings. During working hours a 15-foot wide scaffold at mid-channel will reduced vertical clearance by 9 feet. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    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 an alternate route for shallow draft vessels through San Leandro Bay. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway by our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so they can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the 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 21, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28292 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0963] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway drawbridge across the Cerritos Channel, mile 4.9, at Long Beach, CA. During the deviation electrical power will be disconnected from the bridge to allow removal of the bridge from the waterway. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during its removal.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from November 5, 2015 through 6 p.m. on November 25, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on October 12, 2015 until November 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0963] is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway drawbridge, mile 4.9, over Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, CA. The bridge will provide a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position until October 26, 2015. After October 26, 2015, the bridge and falsework will provide a vertical clearance of 5 feet above Mean High Water until the bridge and falsework are removed completely from the waterway. The bridge currently operates as required by 33 CFR 117.147(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

    The bridge will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on October 12 to 6 p.m. on November 25, 2015 while the bridge is removed from the waterway. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

    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 Los Angeles Harbor can be used as an alternate route for vessels. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway by our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so they can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    The bridge will be removed from the waterway and 33 CFR 117.147(a) will be revised accordingly. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 12, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28293 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0295] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels, Puget Sound, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones around the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, two vessels associated with Royal Dutch Shell's (Shell) Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations, as well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels, while they are located in the U.S. Territorial and Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone. The safety zones created by this rule are necessary to ensure the mutual safety of all waterways users including the specified vessels and those individuals that may desire to exercise their First Amendment rights relating to Shell's Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from November 5, 2015 through December 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, October 23, 2015, through November 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0295 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Kate Haseley, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone (206) 217-6051, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable as the vessels at issue will be arriving in late October and a safety zone is needed at that time to help ensure the safety of all waterway users.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For reasons identical to those described above, delaying the effective date until 30 days after publication would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish limited access areas is: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER are Shell contracted vessels that are returning to the Puget Sound region as a part of demobilizing from oil drilling and exploration operations in the Arctic over the spring and summer of 2015. In the spring of 2015 a significant amount of First Amendment activity related to Shell's arctic activities took place in both Washington and Oregon and such activity may occur again when the vessels are in the Puget Sound. The previous First Amendment activity included the unauthorized boarding of a Shell contracted vessel on the high seas by Greenpeace members, the formation of a “kayak flotilla” in the Puget Sound to advocate against Shell's operations in the region including an attempt to block POLAR PIONEER from leaving Seattle, Washington, and the use of a “kayak flotilla” as well as Greenpeace members hanging from a bridge in Portland, Oregon to prevent another Shell contracted vessel from departing. Draft restrictions, vessel maneuvering characteristics, and geographic/environmental conditions may constrain the ability of large commercial vessels, like the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, to maneuver in close quarters with other vessels, particularly small craft piloted by recreational operators. Intentional close-in interaction of these vessels will create an increased risk of collision, grounding, or personal injury for all parties. This safety risk to all parties and the port itself is best addressed by mandating a minimum zone of separation. For these reasons, the Coast Guard believes that safety zones around the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels, are necessary to ensure the safety of all waterways users.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    In this rule, the Coast Guard is establishing safety zones around the Shell contracted vessels POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels. The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1), while transiting, the safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within 500 yards of the vessels in all directions from those vessels and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels. Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety zones must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the safety zones are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones may be allowed to do so with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the affected waterways when the safety zones are in effect. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, however, because the safety zones are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones may be allowed to do so with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety zones to deal with an emergency situation that is one week or longer in duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all individuals and supports the ability to congregate and exercise First Amendment free speech rights safely and without interfering with other maritime traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in restricted waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop immediately. As such, any First Amendment activity taking place in immediate proximity to such vessels can quickly result in extremis. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights are asked to do so with full regard to vessel traffic conditions and are requested to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate their activities so that their message can be heard, without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T13-302 to read as follows:
    § 165.T13-302 Safety Zones; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels, Puget Sound, WA.

    (a) Safety Zones—(1) Location. The following areas are designated as safety zones: All waters within 500 yards of the following vessels while transiting within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, POLAR PIONEER, and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels.

    (2) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in subpart C of this section, no persons or vessels may enter these safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative. To request permission to enter one of these safety zones contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16. If permission for entry into one of these safety zones is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation and in accordance with any directions given by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative.

    (b) Dates. This rule will be enforced from October 23, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

    Dated: October 23, 2015. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28291 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AP11 Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services From Copayments AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a direct final rule amending its regulation that governs VA services that are not subject to copayment requirements for inpatient hospital care or outpatient medical care. Specifically, the regulation is amended to exempt mental health peer support services from having any required copayment. VA received no adverse comments concerning the direct final rule or its companion substantially identical proposed rule published in the Federal Register on the same date. This document confirms that the direct final rule became effective on January 27, 2015. In a companion document in this issue of the Federal Register, we are withdrawing as unnecessary the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The effective date of January 27, 2015, for the direct final rule published November 28, 2014, 79 FR 70938, is confirmed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin J. Cunningham, Director Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB6), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 382-2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a direct final rule published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014, 79 FR 70938, VA amended 38 CFR 17.108 to eliminate copayments for mental health peer support services. VA published a companion substantially identical proposed rule at 79 FR 70941, on the same date to serve as a proposal for the revisions in the direct final rule in case adverse comments were received. The direct final rule and proposed rule each provided a 60-day comment period that ended on January 27, 2015. No adverse comments were received. Six comments that supported the rulemaking were received from the general public. One commenter also urged VA to exempt evidence-based, cost-effective primary care services from having a required copayment. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, and therefore, VA is not making any changes to this rulemaking based on this comment.

    Under the direct final rule procedures that were described in 79 FR 70938 and 79 FR 70941, the direct final rule became effective on January 27, 2015, because no adverse comments were received within the comment period. In a companion document in this issue of the Federal Register, VA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking, RIN 2900-AP10, published at 79 FR 70941, as unnecessary.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 26, 2015, for publication.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Michael P. Shores, Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28259 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456; FRL-9936-57-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions Statements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the Tennessee state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the Knox County Department of Air Quality Management (County Department), on March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, that require certain sources in Knox County, Tennessee, to report actual emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to the County Department annually. These changes amend the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations in the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP to reflect the State of Tennessee's SIP-approved emissions statement requirements for Knox County. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective January 4, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 7, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456”, Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456”. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tiereny Bell, 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. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated revised 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. EPA designated Blount and Knox Counties in Tennessee as a nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Knoxville Area” or “Area”) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2008-2010 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, the Knoxville Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 6, 2015, EPA finalized a rule entitled “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule) that establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 80 FR 12264. This rule establishes nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA, including an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date, for areas classified as marginal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the attainment date for the Knoxville Area is July 20, 2015.2 On July 13, 2015, EPA determined that the Area had attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and redesignated the Area to attainment. See 80 FR 39970.

    1 The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology, reasonably available control measures, major new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding requirements.

    2 On August 27, 2015, EPA proposed to determine that the Area attained the standard by the attainment date. 80 FR 51992.

    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOC in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC. Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state with ozone nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision requiring annual emissions statements to be submitted to the state by the owner or operator of each NOX or VOC stationary source 3 located within a nonattainment area showing the actual emissions of NOX and VOC from that source. The first statement is due three years from the area's nonattainment designation, and subsequent statements are due at least annually thereafter. The State of Tennessee satisfied the obligation to develop a nonattainment SIP revision for the Knoxville Area addressing section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA approved the State's SIP revision addressing emissions statement requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard on March 5, 2015. See 80 FR 11974.

    3 A state may waive the emissions statements requirement for any class or category of stationary sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of VOCs or NOX if the state meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).

    The Knox County Air Pollution Control Board (County Board) adopted a new regulation, Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5.C—Emissions Statement, on October 16, 2013, requiring certain sources to report actual emissions of VOC and NOX to the County Department annually and amended that regulation on January 21, 2015, to more closely reflect the Tennessee emissions statements requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation 1200-3-18ndash;.02—General Provisions and Applicability. EPA is approving the portion of the March 14, 2014, SIP submittal containing the version of Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on October 16, 2013, and the May 14, 2015, SIP submittal containing the revisions to Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on January 21, 2015. More information on EPA's analysis of the SIP revisions is provided below.

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    The March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, submittals seek to add Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5.C to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP. EPA initially approved Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5—Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting of Source Emissions, into the Tennessee SIP in 1972. See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). Knox County is amending Section 26.5 to include Section 26.5.C—Emissions Statement that reflects the State of Tennessee's SIP-approved emissions statement requirements in Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation 1200-3-18-.02. Section 26.5.C requires owners and operators of sources with actual emissions of 25 tons per year or more of VOC or NOX to submit annual reports of actual emissions to the County Department. Tennessee's May 14, 2015, SIP submittal contains the County Board's January 21, 2015, revisions to Section 26.5.C. that modify the submission deadline and include more detailed certification requirements. The revisions set a June 15 deadline to submit emissions statements to the County Department for 2015 and a March 31 deadline for 2016 and beyond. The revisions also require that an official of the company sign the report, certifying that the information and data contained in the report is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual certifying the report. EPA has determined that these SIP submissions meet the requirements of the CAA.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.0 entitled “Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting”, effective January 21, 2015, addressing annual emissions statements for certain VOC and NOX sources in Knox County. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the March 14, 2014, SIP submittal containing the version of Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on October 16, 2013, and the May 14, 2015, SIP submittal containing the revisions to Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on January 21, 2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 4, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by December 7, 2015.

    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 4, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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 January 4, 2016. 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 EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 20, 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 RR—Tennessee 2. Section 52.2220(c), is amended under Table 3—EPA Approved Knox County, Regulations by revising the entry for “Section 26.0” to read as follows:
    § 52.2220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Table 3—EPA Approved Knox County, Regulations State section Title/Subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.0 Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting 1/21/2015 11/5/2015 [Insert citation of Federal Register] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-28105 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131; FRL-9936-45-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Major Source Permitting State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of revisions to the Louisiana New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. These revisions are updates to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permit programs.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Kordzi, 214-665-7520, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 19, 2015, proposal (80 FR 50240). In that document, we proposed to approve portions of SIP submittals for the State of Louisiana. These amendments provide clarity to the SIP-approved rules and correct contradictory language. Specific proposed revisions address the assessment and validation of a facility's emissions inventory values. Further, the amendments revise the SIP rules to conform to the latest changes to Louisiana laws including making changes to the Louisiana NNSR and PSD permitting programs reflecting the requirements found in the federal NSR Reform Program SIP rules. The changes also define, for NNSR purposes, the parishes that have been designated as non-attainment for ozone. Finally, this action addresses eight rule changes for baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions definitions. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

    II. Final Action

    We are approving portions of SIP submittals for the State of Louisiana submitted on July 25, 1997, June 22, 1998, February 2, 2000, January 27, 2003, June 15, 2005, December 20, 2005, May 5, 2006, July 20, 2007, November 9, 2007, August 14, 2009, May 16, 2011, and February 27, 2013, to address air permit procedure revisions, ERC banking revisions, Baton Rouge Severe Area rule update revisions, NSR reform revisions, rescission of the alternative emission reduction plan for Union Carbide Corporation Taft Plant, revisions for Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and an update of PM2.5 increments. We approve the portions of the SIP submittals that meet CAA requirements. Specifically, we are approving the following revisions to the Louisiana SIP:

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.501 as submitted on July 25, 1997;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.504 as submitted on June 15, 2005; December 20, 2005; May 5, 2006; November 9, 2007; August 14, 2009; and May 16, 2011;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.509 as submitted on July 25, 1997; June 22, 1998; January 27, 2003; February 2, 2000; December 20, 2005; May 5, 2006; November 9, 2007; May 16, 2011; and February 27, 2013;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.603 as submitted on February 2, 2000; and August 14, 2009;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.605 as submitted on August 14, 2009;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.607 as submitted on November 9, 2007 and August 14, 2009;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.613 as submitted on January 27, 2003 and May 5, 2006;

    • Revisions to LAC 33:III.615 as submitted on January 27, 2003 and August 14, 2009; and

    • The removal of the Union Carbide Bubble Permit in Hahnville, Louisiana, as submitted on July 20, 2007, at 40 CFR 52.970(d) to reflect the rescission of the permit by LDEQ.

    The EPA is finding that the May 16, 2011, revisions to the Louisiana NNSR program at LAC 33:III.504 address all required NNSR elements for the implementation of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the Louisiana NNSR program does not include regulation of volatile organic compounds and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors. However, as section 189(e) of the Act requires regulation of PM2.5 precursors that significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels “which exceed the standard in the area” and Louisiana does not have a designated PM2.5 nonattainment area; the revisions addressing only sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are not inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. In the event that an area is designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS or any other future PM2.5 NAAQS, Louisiana will have a deadline under section 189(a)(2) of the CAA to make a submission addressing the statutory requirements as to that area, including the requirements in section 189(e) that apply to the regulation of PM2.5 precursors.

    This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed 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, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 23, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 T—Louisiana 2. In § 52.970: a. In paragraph (c), the table titled “EPA-Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP” is amended by revising the entries for Sections 501, 504, 509, 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615; and b. Paragraph (d) is amended by removing the entry for “Union Carbide Facility in Hahnville, Louisiana”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.970 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP State citation Title/subject State approval date EPA Approval date Comments LAC Title 33. Environmental Quality Part III. Air *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 5—Permit Procedures Section 501 Scope and Applicability 5/20/1996 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 504 Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Procedures 2/20/2011 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] The SIP does not include LAC 33:III.504.M. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 509 Prevention of Significant Deterioration 12/20/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] SIP does not include provisions for permitting of GHGs as effective on 04/20/2011 at LAC 33:III.509(B) definition of “carbon dioxide equivalent emissions”, “greenhouse gases”, “major stationary source”, and “significant”. SIP does not include the PM2.5 SMC at LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)(a) from the 12/20/2012 adoption. LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)(a) is SIP-approved as of 10/20/2007 adoption. Chapter 6—Regulations on Control of Emissions Reduction Credits Banking *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 603 Applicability 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 605 Definitions 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 607 Determination of Creditable Emission Reductions 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 613 ERC Balance Sheet 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Section 615 Schedule for Submitting Applications 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-28097 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795; FRL-9936-60-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of the November 2, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) for inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. This final action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport requirements, and state boards requirements, EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on November 2, 2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not 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:

    Nacosta C. Ward, 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. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. For additional information on the infrastructure SIP requirements, see the proposed rulemaking published on March 13, 2015. (80 FR 13312)

    On March 13, 2015, EPA proposed to approve portions of North Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board requirements of 110(E)(ii). See 80 FR 13312.

    II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the March 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking to approve portions of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission intended to meet the CAA requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

    As an initial matter, the Commenter included interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA in a background section, but this section did not include comments specific to EPA's March 13, 2015 proposed action on the North Carolina infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA provided an analysis of these same interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) in an October 16, 2014, rulemaking regarding the infrastructure SIP of Maryland for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (See 79 FR 62010) and we are incorporating those responses by reference. Specifically, please see EPA's Response 2, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation regarding CAA plain language; Response 3, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of the legislative history of the CAA; Response 5, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.112); Response 6, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of EPA interpretations of section 110 in infrastructure SIP rulemakings; and Response 4, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of Supreme Court and appellate court decisions.

    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's infrastructure submission “fails to include stringent enough emission limits and other restrictions on sources of ozone precursors, like nitrogen oxides (“NOX”), to ensure that areas not designated nonattainment will attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS.” Based on this contention, the Commenter then asserts that “North Carolina's I-SIP does not meet the basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2) and must be disapproved.”

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NC DAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because it fails to include enforceable emission limitations sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in attainment areas. In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.

    EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in “air quality control regions” (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for “attainment” of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include “emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].” In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS, with the primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress replaced the clause “as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]” with “as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.” Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

    As stated in EPA's proposed approval for this rule, to meet section 110(a)(2)(A), North Carolina submitted a list of existing emission reduction and other control measures in the SIP that control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX. The submission also identifies North Carolina's statutory authority to adopt emission control standards to meet established air quality standards such as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes North Carolina's submission appropriately reflects the first step in the State's planning process for attaining and maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS and meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) because the SIP contains enforceable control measures for ozone precursors and the submission provides that North Carolina has the tools to develop and implement measures as may be needed to attain and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

    Comment 2: The Commenter contends that recent monitoring of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment confirms that North Carolina's existing emission limitations are insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Commenter specifically contends that the exceedances of the ozone NAAQS with 2010-2012 data, in areas [Forsyth and Guilford counties] not designated nonattainment under the standard demonstrate that North Carolina's existing emissions limitations cannot ensure attainment and maintenance of the eight-hour ozone standard.

    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NCDAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because of the monitor design values noted by the Commenter. While EPA shares the Commenter's concern regarding any county monitoring violations of the NAAQS, such concerns are outside the scope of what is germane to an evaluation of section 110(a)(2)(A) for an infrastructure SIP submission. With regard to the 2010-2012 design values for Forsyth and Guilford Counties as mentioned by the Commenter, Forsyth and Guilford Counties attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2011-2013 data and continue to attain with preliminary 2013-2015 data.

    Regardless, EPA does not believe that this 2010-2012 monitoring data referenced by the Commenter provides an appropriate basis upon which to disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(A) requirements. Pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(A), an infrastructure SIP submission must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. The Commenter, however, seems to believe that in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) requires the state to submit control measures sufficient to demonstrate attainment in an area designated attainment but that has a recent monitored violation of the NAAQS. EPA does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of the provision with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions. Rather, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon it. The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change in an area's design value for each year over that period, nor to predict the air quality data in periods after development and submission of the SIPs.

    Further, the Act provides states and EPA with other tools to address concerns that arise with respect to violations of the NAAQS in a designated attainment area, such as the authority to redesignate areas pursuant to section 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a “SIP Call” pursuant to section 110(k)(5), or the general authority to approve SIP revisions that can address such violations of the NAAQS through other appropriate measures. As described above, EPA believes that North Carolina's infrastructure submission is sufficient because it appropriately addresses the structural SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by including enforceable emission control measures and the authority to adopt and implement additional measures, if needed.

    Comment 3: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's infrastructure SIP must ensure that proper mass limitations and short term averaging periods are imposed on certain specific large sources of NOX such as power plants. Moreover, the Commenter contends that emission limits must apply at all times, including during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), to ensure that all areas of North Carolina attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Absent such limits, the Commenter contends that an I-SIP submission may not be approved. Specifically the Commenter contends that enforceable emission limitations for the State's coal fired EGUs [electric generating units] should be set on a pounds per hour (“lb/hr”) basis, based on, at most, a corresponding 0.07 lb/MMBtu limit. The Commenter further contends that setting a lb/hr limit will ensure consistent protection of the ambient air quality regardless of whether the nominal maximum heat input capacity for the unit is accurate or changes in the future and addresses the issue of variations in mass emissions during startup and shutdown so that even if the NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu is higher during startup and shutdown (for instance when selective catalytic reduction technology is not being engaged), hourly emissions of NOX would not cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS.

    Response 3: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of North Carolina's pursuit of additional NOX emission limitations at coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. However, EPA does not believe that approval of the infrastructure SIP is contingent on the State adopting additional controls for the State's coal fired EGUs. Congress established the CAA such that each state has primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the state and determining an emission reduction program for its areas subject to EPA approval, with such approval dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). EPA cannot condition approval of the North Carolina infrastructure SIP upon inclusion of a particular emission reduction program as long as the SIP otherwise meets the requirements of the CAA. As explained in the proposal and in this final action, North Carolina does not need to adopt additional emission control requirements in order to meet the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A).

    Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter's contention that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission without ensuring that it contains emission limits applicable at all times, including during periods of SSM. For the reasons stated in the proposal, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP is necessarily the appropriate type of action to address this type of deficiency. See 80 FR at 13315-17. Rather, as described in the proposal, EPA believes that the authority Congress provided to EPA under section 110(k)(5), for example, allows EPA to take appropriately tailored action. Indeed, EPA recognizes that a number of states have existing SSM provisions contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance and, in the time since the proposal for this action, has finalized a separate action addressing those state regulations. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015) (SSM SIP Action of 2015). In the SSM SIP Action of 2015, EPA concluded that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 statewide and local jurisdictions) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus issued a “SIP call” for each of those 36 states pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).1 North Carolina's unlawful SSM provisions are covered by that action. See, e.g., id. at 33964. EPA continues to believe that existing, unlawful provisions related to excess emissions during SSM events should be addressed through more appropriate authorities provided by Congress; not in piecemeal fashion, in the context of reviewing a state's infrastructure SIP submission.

    1 The SSM SIP Action of 2015 also embodies EPA's updated SSM Policy as it applies to SIP provisions and provides guidance to states for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP provisions applicable to excess emissions during SSM events. EPA has encouraged any state with deficient SSM provisions to correct those provisions as soon as possible (as some states already have), but in no case longer than the 18-month timeframe provided in the SSM SIP Action of 2015.

    Comment 4: The Commenter contends that, to comply with section 110(a) and avoid additional nonattainment designations for areas impacted by ozone levels above the standard, “EPA must disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP to ensure that large sources of NOX and VOCs cannot cause or contribute to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and, thereby prohibit implementation, attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS throughout all areas of the State, in violation of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)(A).” The commenter states that the inadequacies of the SIP are highlighted by recent monitoring data.

    Response 4: EPA disagrees that it must disapprove North Carolina's submittal to ensure that large sources of NOX and VOC do not contribute to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS such that additional areas would need to be designated nonattainment in the future. In essence, this comment suggests that as part of the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP, the state must demonstrate that all areas of the state will maintain the standard in the future. As explained previously, we disagree that the language and structure of the CAA mandate such a result. The CAA recognizes that air quality may change over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or changing from nonattainment to attainment and has provisions addressing such changes. These include provisions providing for redesignation in section 107(d) and provisions in section 110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, as appropriate.

    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), the State must demonstrate in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has the authority to revise of its SIP, including as needed to address any finding by EPA that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. To satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), North Carolina's submittal cites to statutory authority that allows the state to adopt standards and plans to implement the requirements of the CAA and Federal implementing regulations, and to specifically establish lower emissions limits if needed to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the CAA provides appropriate tools to address changes in air quality over time and North Carolina's submittal also appropriately addresses the elements needed to address any changes in air quality over time.

    Comment 5: The Commenter contends that ozone concentrations will be exacerbated by ongoing climate change and that North Carolina's existing emission limits are not stringent enough to adequately protect the public from the dangers posed by exposure to elevated ozone concentrations. The Commenter contends that this underscores the need for North Carolina to impose tighter emission limits if it hopes to attain and maintain the current NAAQS for ozone in areas not currently designated nonattainment.

    Response 5: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious environmental issue; however, for the reasons provided in the previous responses, we disagree that states are required to anticipate and plan for possible future nonattainment within each area of the state as part of the infrastructure SIP.

    We note that given the potential wide-ranging impacts of climate change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate adaptation implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to our programs (including how climate change might affect attainment of national ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority actions to minimize these vulnerabilities. With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and meteorologically-dependent emissions. These efforts are just beginning.

    Additionally, as previously stated regarding tighter emission limits, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. As explained above, to the extent that climate change or any other factor exacerbates air quality in the future, the CAA provides the appropriate tools to assess and address these conditions.

    III. Today's Action

    In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of North Carolina's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting provisions in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board requirements of section 110(E)(ii).

    IV. Final Action

    With the exceptions described above, EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's November 2, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission because it addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. NCDAQ has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 January 4, 2016. 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 EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 22, 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 II—North Carolina 2. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1770 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA Approval date Federal Register citation Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 11/2/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] With the exception of sections: 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) concerning PSD permitting requirements; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) concerning interstate transport requirements; 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning state board requirements.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28098 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0807; FRL-9936-54-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Test Methods; Error Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that a portion of an October 26, 2010, action was in error and is making a correction pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act. The October 26, 2010, EPA action approved various revisions to Ohio regulations in the EPA approved state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions were intended to consolidate air quality standards into a new chapter of rules and to adjust the cross references accordingly in various related Ohio rules. These changes included a specific revision to the cross reference in the Ohio rule pertaining to methods for measurements for comparison with the particulate matter air quality standards. This final correction action removes any misperception that EPA approved any revision to the pertinent rule other than the revised cross reference. This action will therefore assure that the codification of the October 26, 2010, action is in accord with the actual substance of the action.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0807. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking II. Comments and EPA's Responses III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted a variety of revisions to the EPA approved version of Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-17 in the state's SIP, which regulates particulate matter and opacity from affected sources. While EPA subsequently approved many of these revisions, EPA published action on June 27, 2005, proposing to disapprove specific submitted revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that in EPA's view relaxed existing SIP opacity limitations without an adequate analysis under section 110(l) or section 193 of the Clean Air Act.1 Consistent with this proposed disapproval, the version of OAC 3745-17-03(B) submitted by the state on June 4, 2003, was not, and is not, an approved provision of the Ohio SIP.

    1 See 70 FR 36901 (June 27, 2005).

    On September 10, 2009, for purposes of consolidating its existing SIP rules identifying applicable air quality standards, and to adjust the cross references between rules accordingly, Ohio submitted additional revisions to several of its existing rules to EPA for approval into the SIP. Most notably, these rule revisions included a modification to the existing cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A), which was necessary because the ambient particulate matter measurement method identified in this paragraph was for purposes of assessing attainment with the ambient air quality standards now located in OAC 3745-25-02, rather than in OAC 3745-17-02.

    On October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572, EPA published a direct final action approving the relevant revisions in the September 10, 2009, submission. In the preamble and in the codification of the October 26, 2010, action, EPA erroneously listed the approved SIP revisions as including the entirety of OAC 3745-17-03, rather than specifying more precisely that the approval as it pertained to OAC 3745-17-03 applied only to the revised cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). This error left the misimpression that EPA had approved other significant substantive revisions in OAC 3745-17-03, including those in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that EPA had previously proposed to disapprove. The codification in the October 26, 2010, action with respect to OAC 3745-17-03 should have been explicitly limited to OAC 3745-17-03(A), to reflect the EPA approval of only the revised cross reference.

    EPA subsequently recognized that the codification erroneously left the misimpression that it had approved more of OAC 3745-17-03 than the revision of the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). On April 3, 2013, at 78 FR 19990, EPA published action to correct the error. EPA took this action pursuant to its general rulemaking authority under Administrative Procedures Act section 553. Two parties challenged EPA's April 3, 2013, action, and one of these parties also filed a petition for reconsideration of that action, objecting that EPA failed to correct the error in the October 26, 2010, action in accordance with the procedures of section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act.

    EPA responded to the petition for reconsideration by agreeing to take this action pursuant to section 110(k)(6), as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, EPA published proposed rulemaking on February 7, 2014, using its authority under section 110(k)(6) to correct errors in its rulemaking of October 26, 2010.2 Given the petitioners' expressed interest in commenting on EPA's action, EPA elected to use its authority under section 110(k)(6) for this action because, under these circumstances, it would provide the best mechanism to correct the apparent misunderstandings concerning the error in the October 26, 2010, action.

    2 See 79 FR 7412 (Feb. 7, 2014).

    EPA's February 7, 2014, proposal provides an extensive description of the error in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking, provided in subsections entitled, “What was the error in description and codification?”, “What precipitated this error?”, and “Why was it evident that this was an error?” It is not necessary to repeat that detailed explanation here. EPA proposed to correct the error to remove any misimpression in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking that EPA had approved any revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 other than the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Specifically, EPA proposed to take action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6) repromulgating the correction published on April 3, 2013. EPA solicited comments on this proposed error correction, while noting that any comments on the technical or legal merits of certain substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 (e.g., the opacity-related provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B)) or on the pending proposed disapproval of those provisions would not be germane to this error correction rulemaking.

    EPA intended to correct the error in the October 26, 2010, action first and then separately to complete the action to address the merits of the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 in the June 4, 2003, SIP submission that were the subject of the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval. To this end, EPA published a supplemental proposal on June 26, 2014, reopening comment on its prior proposed disapproval of revisions to OAC 3745-17-03.3 Subsequently, however, Ohio has withdrawn the portion of the June 4, 2003, submission that EPA proposed to disapprove.4

    3 See 79 FR 36277 (June 26, 2014).

    4 See letter from Craig W. Butler, Director, Ohio EPA, to Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 5, dated September 5, 2014, “request[ing] withdrawal of [Ohio's] June 4, 2003 request to incorporate paragraph (B)(1)(b) into Ohio's SIP.”

    Accordingly, since the provisions is withdrawn, EPA does not need to complete action on the June 4, 2003, SIP submission. Significantly, this also confirms that the submitted substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 are not part of the EPA approved SIP and that the EPA's October 26, 2010, action could not have revised those elements of the existing version of OAC 3745-17-03 in the SIP, inadvertently or otherwise. Except for an amendment to the cross reference to ambient air quality standards in OAC 3745-17-03(A) (which EPA approved on October 26, 2010), the version of OAC 3745-17-03 in the SIP remains the version effective in the state on January 31, 1998, approved by EPA on October 16, 2007.

    II. Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received comments on its proposed error correction from three parties: (i) The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); (ii) the Ohio Utility Group; and (iii) a group including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Manufacturers Association, and Ohio Chemistry Technology Council (Chamber et al.). The following are significant adverse comments from each commenter and EPA's responses.

    Ohio EPA

    Comment: The commenter asserted that: “On February 7, 2014, U.S. EPA proposed, as an error correction, to remove from Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) a previously approved (October 26, 2010) portion of OAC Rule 3745-17-07 regarding methods for measurements to determine compliance with Ohio's 20% opacity limitation.” 5 With this statement, the commenter is implying that EPA in fact approved substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 in the October 26, 2010, action, rather than merely approved the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). The commenter suggested that EPA acted on “the entirety” of the revisions to OAC 3745-17-03.

    5 EPA's October 26, 2010, rulemaking makes no reference to OAC 3745-17-07 (containing opacity limits). EPA presumes that the commenter intends to refer to OAC 3745-17-03, which among other provisions has provisions relating to measurement of opacity.

    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's premise that the Agency approved any portion of OAC 3745-17-03 other than the revision to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). EPA's February 17, 2014, proposed action rule provides an extensive explanation of the error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action and the genesis of the error. Ohio's clearly stated purpose in making the September 10, 2009, submission was to consolidate its existing SIP provisions relating to ambient air quality standards and to revise certain cross references in existing approved SIP rules in order to reflect that reorganization. The specific SIP revisions at issue in the state's submission were reflected in redline and the redlined document identified the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) as the only revision relevant to OAC 3745-17-03. This indicates that approval of any substantive revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) would have been beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Moreover, EPA had already proposed to disapprove revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) on June 27, 2005, EPA received numerous, substantial comments for and against that proposed disapproval, and the rulemaking of October 26, 2010, provided no evidence of consideration of any of these comments. Although the commenter described EPA's proposed error correction action as an action to “remove . . . a previously approved” portion of rule, this is simply incorrect. EPA did not “previously approve” the portions of OAC 3745-17-03 that the Agency rulemaking of October 26, 2010, did not substantively address. EPA fully acknowledged in the February 17, 2014, proposal that the error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action was the result of misunderstandings and miscommunications that it is seeking to rectify in this final error correction action. EPA is taking this final action in order to avoid further confusion on the part of regulated entities, regulators, and members of the public.

    Comment: The commenter stated that it “firmly believes [that the provision in OAC 3745-17-03(B)] is fully approvable.” The commenter explained that it was “attaching, and reaffirming” its prior comments on EPA's proposed disapproval of this provision in the June 27, 2005, action. The commenter further requested that “[c]onsideration should be taken to the previous comments submitted by Ohio EPA and others regarding the approvability of the provision at question in this action.”

    Response: As explained in the February 17, 2014, proposal for this action, EPA is focusing this section 110(k)(6) rulemaking on the specific error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action. This rulemaking is not addressing the substantive merits of any portion of OAC 3745-17-03. Instead, this rulemaking is addressing whether EPA made an error in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking by including a codification that went beyond the scope of the rulemaking and whether EPA should correct that error by correcting the codification to reflect that the only portion of OAC 3745-17-03 that was addressed in that rulemaking was the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Accordingly, the commenter's resubmission of its prior comments on the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval is inappropriate and not germane to this action.

    In addition to being outside the scope of this error correction action, EPA notes that the commenter's arguments also support EPA's conclusion that the October 26, 2010, action was in error to the extent that it appeared to approve any revision beyond the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). The commenter explicitly acknowledged that EPA previously received significant comments concerning the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), in particular comments that in the commenter's view warrant reversal of EPA's prior proposed disapproval. Furthermore, the commenter in effect argued that EPA has not adequately considered these comments. This is fully consistent with EPA's own observation that its October 26, 2010, rulemaking provided no evidence of any consideration of public comments concerning OAC 3745-17-03(B) whatsoever (again, because this provision was outside the scope of that rulemaking). Thus, the commenter appeared to agree with EPA's view that the October 26, 2010, rulemaking does not provide any evidence of the consideration of comments regarding OAC 3745-17-03(B) that would be necessary for any approval or disapproval of OAC 3745-17-03(B) to be considered lawful. Moreover, the commenter did not appear to dispute EPA's view that rulemaking on OAC 3745-17-03(B) could not be considered a lawful and valid part of the October 26, 2010, rulemaking even if it had been intended to be within the scope of the rulemaking. As explained in the February 17, 2014, proposal for this action, EPA had no such intentions and the fact that EPA did not address prior substantive comments on the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B) should have alerted the commenter and other parties to this fact.

    Finally, EPA acknowledges the commenter's request that that EPA complete its consideration of comments on the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), but such consideration is outside the scope of this rulemaking. By separate action, EPA intended to address the merits of the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 in the June 4, 2003, SIP submission that were the subject of the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval. To this end, EPA published a supplemental proposal on June 26, 2014, reopening comment on its prior proposed disapproval of certain substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03.6 Subsequently, however, Ohio withdrew its submittal of revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B).7 This renders consideration of comments with respect to the withdrawn submission moot, both for purposes of the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval and for purposes of this error correction action.

    6 See 79 FR 36277 (June 26, 2014).

    7 See letter from Craig W. Butler, Director, Ohio EPA, to Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 5, dated September 5, 2014, which may be found in the docket for this final action.

    Comment: The commenter objected that “U.S. EPA has made certain assertions regarding [OAC 3745-17-03(B)] that go beyond the scope of this proposed correction. U.S. EPA refers to the provision as `significant and substantive' and states the `unapproved' revisions `would allow significantly more opacity during certain periods.' ” The commenter disputed these statements. The commenter asserted its belief that “U.S. EPA has crossed the threshold and cannot go forward with the package under 110(k), since U.S. EPA is now making a technical argument as to why the previously approved SIP revision is no longer acceptable.” The commenter also argued that “as a procedural matter, U.S. EPA must start over from the beginning and outline and address the entire technical issue in full and not use the 110(k) `error' approach.”

    Response: The premise of the commenter's arguments is that EPA's February 17, 2014, action in effect proposed to finalize EPA's prior proposed disapproval of certain portions of OAC 3745-17-03, not merely correcting the error that led to the misimpression that EPA had already approved the revisions in toto. The commenter is thereby ignoring EPA's clear statements about the actual scope of this error correction.

    As explained in the February 17, 2014, proposal for this action, EPA is focusing this section 110(k)(6) rulemaking on the specific error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action. EPA provided extensive discussion and explanation of the error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action and why EPA could not be considered to have acted on any revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 that were outside the scope of that rulemaking. EPA explained the significance of OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the February 17, 2014, proposal as a means of explaining why EPA considered it important to correct the errors in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking. EPA noted in passing that it had already proposed to disapprove certain provisions for reasons that were already a matter of public record in the Federal Register as a means of emphasizing that it could not have approved those revisions in the October 26, 2010, action without an explicit discussion and justification for any such approval.

    The commenter appears to agree that the revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that it advocated for EPA to approve are significant and substantive. EPA statements regarding the significance of the error, however, cannot be considered to constitute final review of the merits of the erroneously addressed provisions. The October 26, 2010, action clearly did not address the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), and EPA's action proposing to correct an error related to these provisions did not address the merits of these provisions either.

    The commenter disagreed in particular with EPA's characterization of OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the February 17, 2014, proposal as allowing significantly more opacity during certain periods. A more precise statement would have been that EPA had proposed to disapprove the pertinent revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the June 27, 2005, proposal based in significant part on the view that the revisions would allow significantly more opacity during certain periods. The commenter, along with several other commenters, has disputed EPA's proposed views regarding the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B). As explained in detail in the February 17, 2014, proposal for this error correction, however, EPA did not intend, and could not have intended, to address the substantive merits of those revisions in the October 26, 2010, action. Indeed, with Ohio's withdrawal of its request for rulemaking on these provisions, EPA will no longer be conducting final rulemaking on the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B). Nevertheless, the more relevant point is that the existence of these disputes as to the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B) illustrates the importance of correcting any errors that might create the misimpression that EPA had completed its review of these issues. EPA believes that the significance of the provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B) and the outstanding questions regarding whether those provisions could have been approved consistent with CAA requirements provide added value to correcting any misimpressions regarding the status of those provisions, namely misimpressions reasserted in these comments that EPA had already completed rulemaking on these provisions.

    Contrary to the commenter's statement, EPA's proposed rulemaking to correct the errors in its October 26, 2010, action was not based on a technical argument regarding the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B), including any technical argument as to whether these provisions allow significantly more opacity during certain periods. This assertion regarding whether the now withdrawn revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 would allow more opacity (made in EPA's 2005 proposed rulemaking addressing the merits of Ohio's now withdrawn SIP revision and contested by various commenters) illustrates the significance of the error in the October 26, 2010, action. However, the commenter provided no reason why characterization of the issue as significant and identification of any of the unresolved issues that were not addressed in the October 26, 2010, rulemaking (or elsewhere) should preclude EPA from assuring that the October 26, 2010, rulemaking is characterized properly.

    Comment: The commenter objected to EPA statements in a separate unrelated rulemaking regarding SIP revisions for the State of Alabama. The commenter referred to EPA statements that the commenter characterized as citing “the 2005 proposed disapproval of Ohio's revision, in part, as justification for the proposed disapproval of Alabama's revision.” The commenter further asserted that this “mislead[s] the readers of the Alabama proposal that Ohio's proposed disapproval has followed its due course, when it has not.” The commenter requested that “any action taken on the Alabama proposal should not be used as justification for disapproving Ohio's provision.”

    Response: EPA acknowledges that the proposed action concerning the State of Alabama mentioned the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval of the Ohio submission. The existence of that proposal was, and is, a matter of record. EPA mentioned the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval merely as means of explaining its views on relevant issue, not as a basis for a particular final action. The commenter did not explain why this comment concerning a proposed action in another state is relevant to the present error correction action concerning Ohio, nor does EPA consider it germane to this final action. In any event, the state has now withdrawn the portion of the submission that EPA proposed to disapprove, so this comment is moot.

    Ohio Utility Group

    Comment: The commenter asserted that “U.S. EPA's action is not trivial and is not a mere `correction.' In support of this statement, the commenter recited its view of the history of rulemaking on OAC 3745-17-03(B), including adoption by Ohio and proposed disapproval by EPA. The commenter observed that EPA received extensive comments on the June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval, but acknowledged that “U.S. EPA never finalized this proposed action and, based on a review of the record, U.S. EPA never responded to comments submitted on this proposed rule.” The commenter presented a summary of arguments in support of the merits of the opacity “exemption” in OAC 3745-17-03(B) that EPA proposed to disapprove in the June 27, 2005, proposal, and concluded that “this exemption is technically defensible and the data [compiled to formulate the exemption] were never rebutted by U.S. EPA.”

    Response: The commenter did not elaborate on its argument that EPA's proposed error correction action “is not trivial” or why EPA's proposed action is not consistent with EPA's authority to correct errors under section 110(k)(6). To the extent that the commenter is arguing that EPA's authority under section 110(k)(6) is limited to correcting “trivial” errors, EPA disagrees. On its face, section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct any error in a rulemaking action and does not restrict that authority to correction of errors that other parties might characterize as “trivial.” By its plain terms, EPA's authority under section 110(k)(6) extends broadly to “action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification.” Similarly, by its plain terms EPA's authority is not limited with respect to the nature or seriousness of the error, i.e., it is not restricted to correction of “trivial” errors.

    EPA and the commenters appear to agree on the fact that the revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) that EPA proposed to disapprove are important substantive provisions. In EPA's view, the importance of these provisions makes it necessary for EPA to clarify the fact that the October 26, 2010, rulemaking did not make any substantive revision to these provisions, and EPA cannot be considered to have lawfully acted on the revisions provisions without considering the comments for and against its June 27, 2005, proposal to disapprove them. Regardless of whether the error was “trivial” or not, EPA has concluded that the error warrants correction pursuant the authority of section 110(k)(6) (or under authorities that EPA is not using in this action).

    The commenters' substantive arguments regarding the merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B) are not germane here, because they are not relevant to determining whether the codification contained in EPA's October 26, 2010, action was an erroneous description of that rulemaking action. The only issue in this action is EPA's correction of the error. Moreover, now that the state has withdrawn the submission seeking substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B), these comments are moot.

    Comment: The commenter, in describing EPA's actions, states that “[i]n 2010, . . . it appeared that U.S. EPA approved [OAC] 3745-17-03 in its entirety.”

    Response: The commenter evidently agrees that EPA had only “appeared” to have approved substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) in the October 26, 2010, action, because that is how they themselves describe what occurred.

    Comment: The commenter made several assertions that it believes preclude EPA from finalizing this error correction. First, the commenter “object[ed] to U.S. EPA's statement that a comment period was not required in issuing [the correction EPA published on April 3, 2013].” The commenter stated that section 110(k)(6) dictates how EPA should make corrections to past rulemakings. The commenter also noted that section 110(k)(6) in particular requires that an error made through notice and comment rulemaking can only be corrected through notice and comment rulemaking. The commenter asserted that EPA's April 3, 2013, action to effectuate the correction of the October 26, 2010, action was invalid because it failed to meet this requirement of section 110(k)(6).

    Response: While EPA continues to believe that the Administrative Procedures Act provides independent authority for agencies to issue corrections, that authority was not the basis of this rulemaking. The commenter submitted a petition for reconsideration requesting that EPA publish notice and solicit comment pursuant to its error correction authority under Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6). EPA granted that request, and this action is the final step of the requested error correction rulemaking. The commenter objected to the procedure EPA used to correct the error in the April 3, 2013, rulemaking, but that rulemaking is being replaced by this rulemaking under section 110(k)(6). Thus, comments concerning the procedure EPA should or should not have followed with respect to the April 3, 2013, rulemaking are not relevant and in fact are made moot by this action. In short, EPA is correcting the error by the procedure that the commenter advocated.

    Comment: The commenter also objected that EPA did not have “good cause” (in its April 3, 2013, rulemaking) under the Administrative Procedures Act section 553(b) to make corrections without undergoing notice and comment. The commenter asserted its view that notice and comment (for EPA's April 3, 2013, action) was “not impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” In other words, the commenter disagreed with EPA's determination that there was a good cause exception to the normal requirements for notice and comment, given the nature of error at issue.

    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that correction of what was essentially a typographical error requires full notice and comment rulemaking in all cases. Nevertheless, EPA notes that this comment suggests that the commenter acknowledged that Administrative Procedures Act section 553(b) authorizes corrections, even without notice and opportunity for comment, so long as EPA adequately justifies the decision not to undergo notice and opportunity for comment. In any case, EPA concludes that this rulemaking does not invoke that authority to forego notice and comment for good cause, and this action makes moot the rulemaking (published April 3, 2013) that did invoke that authority.

    Comment: The commenter also objected to EPA's description of the error in the October 26, 2010, action as essentially a typographical error. The commenter claimed that “[t]he Utilities did not submit comments [at the time of EPA's October 26, 2010, rulemaking] because U.S. EPA approved Ohio Adm. Code 3745-17-03 in its entirety as the notice indicated. Had the Utilities understood that these rules were selective to subpart (A), the Utilities may have submitted comments on this proposal.”

    Response: As an initial matter, EPA notes that the commenter's claim supports the Agency's view that the error in the October 26, 2010, action engendered confusion and misunderstanding among some affected parties. The commenter speculates that had EPA's October 26, 2010, rulemaking used preamble language and a codification that more clearly identified that the only revision to OAC 3745-17-03 that EPA was approving was the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A), it might have commented. Presumably those comments would have urged EPA to approve portions of OAC 3745-17-03 that were outside the scope and purpose of the applicable state submission, which with respect to OAC 3745-17-03 only requested the revision of the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). In such a hypothetical situation, EPA presumably would have responded to those comments by explaining that it was not approving any revision to OAC 3745-17-03 beyond the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) and that comments beyond that narrow issue were beyond the scope of the October 26, 2010, rulemaking.

    In any case, the commenter has now had the opportunity to comment on the very issue that it speculated it would have commented on under the 2010 conditions it hypothesized. The proposed rulemaking for this error correction action proposed to find that rulemaking on portions of OAC 3745-17-03 other than OAC 3745-17-03(A) in the 2010 air quality standards rulemaking would have been outside the scope of that rulemaking. Thus, EPA solicited comment on precisely the issue that the commenter speculated it would have commented on in its hypothesized 2010 circumstances, i.e., whether or not rulemaking on OAC 3745-17-03(B) would have been an appropriate part of the 2010 rulemaking on Ohio's air quality standards submittal. Of note is that in the actual, present circumstances, the commenter had the benefit of express EPA statements in the February 7, 2014, proposal, stating that any action in response to Ohio's submittal of September 10, 2009, on portions of OAC 3745-17-03 other than OAC 3745-17-03(A) would be outside the scope of the rulemaking because it would not be pertinent to the SIP revision request that EPA was considering.

    Finally, EPA notes that the commenter did in fact comment, to urge approval of revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B), without contesting EPA's view that these provisions are outside the scope of the relevant state submission and EPA's rulemaking thereon. As explained in the proposal for this action, those revisions were not at issue in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking and are not at issue in this error correction. EPA regrets the inconvenience to all parties that arose from the error in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking. However, the point here is that it is unnecessary to speculate on how the commenter would have commented on the October 26, 2010, rulemaking had that rulemaking more clearly stated that the only revision to OAC 3745-17-03 under consideration was the revision to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). The commenter has now had the opportunity to comment on the applicable issues, and EPA is addressing its comments here.

    Comment: The commenter also objected to EPA's statements in the proposal for this action that it is correcting what is essentially a typographical error. The commenter asserted that this “correction is not trivial.”

    Response: The commenter did not explain its substantive grounds for objecting to EPA's proposed error correction. The commenter omits any rationale for why the significance of the provisions of OAC 3745-17-03(B) would justify labeling the mistaken codification in EPA's October 26, 2010, rulemaking as anything other than an error or why, regardless of label, the misleading codification does not warrant correction. For example, the commenter implies that a significance criterion applies in judging whether a statement is in error, as if an action with significant ramifications cannot be in error or that errors cannot have significant consequences. However, the commenter offered no rationale for why the misstatements in the October 26, 2010, rulemaking, whatever the significance of those misstatements, should not be considered to be in error.

    EPA's proposed rulemaking provides extensive discussion of why EPA believes that the codification in its October 26, 2010, action was in error, including multiple reasons that demonstrate that EPA did not intend and could not have intended to approve provisions in OAC 3745-17-03 that were beyond the stated purpose of Ohio's submission, which with respect to OAC 3745-17-03 was only to revise the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Conspicuously absent from the commenter's comments is any specific argument contesting EPA's rationale for this error correction, be it to question EPA's interpretation of Ohio's September 10, 2009, submission, to dispute that EPA did not intend and could not have intended to take action on OAC 3745-17-03(B), or to challenge EPA's assertion that in any case there has been no legally valid action on OAC 3745-17-03(B) because EPA has not addressed pertinent comments on its prior proposed disapproval of that separate revision (including comments that the commenter itself attests to making).

    Comment: The commenter states, “the Utilities disagree with U.S. EPA's assertion that its `correction' does not allow substantive comments on Ohio Adm. Code 3745-17-03.” The commenter further asserted that “U.S. EPA's action is essentially making Ohio's SIP more stringent than it was when it approved Ohio Adm. Code 3745-17-03 in 2010. . . . [Therefore,] the Utilities believe that substantive comments on Ohio Adm. Code 3745-17-03 are proper and should be considered by U.S. EPA.”

    Response: These comments misrepresent EPA's assertion, mischaracterize EPA's action, and provide no rationale for EPA to change its views on relevant matters. EPA's proposed rulemaking states: “any substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03, including any revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B)(1), are not at issue in this rulemaking. Only comments regarding EPA's correction of the error in the October 26, 2010, action are germane to this rulemaking under section 110(k)(6).” The commenter may elect to make comments that are not germane, and the commenter has exercised its right to do so, though the commenter has not challenged EPA's proposed rationale as to the scope of comments that should be considered germane. For example, even if EPA's action could be misconstrued as a substantive revision to the approved SIP (which it is not), and whether the newer version of OAC 3745-17-03(B) is less stringent than the older version (as the commenter contended in these comments) or not (as the commenter contended in its attached comments from 2005), the commenter does not explain why this asserted change in stringency justifies predicating EPA's action to correct an error on the substantive merits of erroneously codified provisions. Therefore, EPA concludes that comments as to the substantive merits of OAC 3745-17-03(B) are not germane to this action, which only addresses the error that occurred in the October 26, 2010, action pertaining to Ohio EPA's submission regarding its air quality standards rules.

    Similarly, the commenter mischaracterized EPA's proposed error action, asserting that EPA is hereby removing an approval of portions of OAC 3745-17-03 that, it asserted, EPA approved in the October 26, 2010, action. The proposed rulemaking explained at length that EPA cannot have approved any portion of 3745-17-03 in 2010 other than the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A), and so the action EPA proposed clarifies the approved SIP without changing the substance of what has actually been approved. Again, the commenter provided no rationale for adopting its views as to the nature of EPA's proposed action rather than the views EPA proposed.

    Chamber et al.

    Comment: The commenter provided an extensive description of provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B). The commenter also provided a history of this provision, including Ohio's submission of the provision to EPA in June 2003, EPA's proposal to disapprove the provision in June 2005, the (erroneous) appearance of EPA approving the provision on October 26, 2010, the EPA correction of this appearance on April 3, 2013, without reference to correction authority in Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6), a petition for EPA to reconsider this correction, and EPA's proposal published on February 7, 2014, to make this correction under the authority of Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6).

    Response: EPA generally agrees with the commenters recitation of the facts, but does not agree with the implication that “appearing” to approve the revision means that it was in fact approved. Moreover, this portion of these comments provides background information and does not urge any changes to EPA's views underlying the relevant proposed action, and so no detailed review of this portion of these comments is warranted. Any history of the provisions of OAC 3745-17-03(B) should also note that Ohio (subsequent to these comments) has withdrawn its submission that sought approval of the provision.

    Comment: The commenter stated that it “submit[ted] these comments for two reasons. First, we would like to briefly address EPA's comment that the COMS provision is `significant and substantive' and `would allow significantly more opacity during certain periods.' This appears to be a reference to [text in EPA's June 2005 proposed rulemaking (at 70 FR 36903), quoted in the comment].”

    The commenter raised several objections to these EPA statements. The commenter asserted that the scenario EPA discussed in the June 2005 proposed disapproval, intended as an example case in which the revised version of OAC 3745-17-03(B) “allow[s] excess opacity on occasions that excess opacity is currently prohibited,” to reflect an unlikely pattern of operation that would not be expected to be identified as a violation using the reference method (Method 9) of the unrevised rule. “In summary, the alternative of continuous instrumental monitoring of in-stack opacity in lieu of periodic Method 9 visible emission observations may be `significant and substantive' in terms of imposing more stringent performance obligations, but it certainly [is] not a `significant and substantive' relaxation of the performance obligation where Method 9 is the SIP reference test for opacity.”

    Response: The commenter is correct that the pertinent statement in the February 7, 2014, proposed rulemaking reflects the views expressed in the cited statement in EPA's June 27, 2005, proposed rulemaking. The commenter also observed that EPA has not completed rulemaking pursuant to this June 2005 proposed disapproval. EPA's purpose for making these statements in the proposal for this error correction was to provide context and to explain the significance of the error, not to take a substantive position. To be clear, in the June 2005 proposal, EPA proposed to find that the revised version of OAC 3745-17-03(B) would have allowed significantly more opacity during certain periods and that the state had failed to provide a section 110(l) or section 193 analysis to justify the resulting relaxation; subsequently, EPA received comments disputing that finding, and EPA has not yet taken final action on that proposal.

    Because Ohio has withdrawn its June 2003 submission, however, EPA will be conducting no further rulemaking on that submission. Therefore, it is no longer germane to any ongoing rulemaking whether Ohio's June 2003 submission would have tightened or relaxed the stringency of Ohio's existing SIP. In any case, the desirability of clarifying the status of OAC 3745-17-03(B) is not contingent on any final judgment regarding the effect of previously submitted revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B) on allowable opacity. In its February 7, 2014, proposal, EPA sought merely to explain why the error in its October 26, 2010, final rule warranted correction. Comments from the Ohio Utilities Group discussed above suggest that the provisions of OAC 3745-17-03(B), and the associated relaxation of requirements, are too important to be the subject of an error correction. These comments from the Chamber et al. argue that the provisions of OAC 3745-17-03(B) are not a “significant and substantive” relaxation of the opacity-related requirements and in fact may be a “significant and substantive” tightening of performance obligations. Regardless of these conflicting comments, three parties have concluded that the status of OAC 3745-17-03(B) is sufficiently important to comment on rulemaking proposing to clarify the status of this rule. Even aside from questions regarding the substantive consequences of revisions to OAC 3745-17-03(B), EPA seeks clarity regarding which rules have been approved into the SIP, especially for rules that prompt significant substantive interest. Consequently, EPA has concluded that it is important to clarify the scope of EPA's rulemaking on Ohio's submittal addressing air quality standards and to correct the errors in the October 26, 2010, action that created a misimpression that EPA had approved OAC 3745-17-03(B)as a part of the SIP.

    Comment: The commenter also asked that EPA complete its rulemaking action on the June 2003 SIP revision that EPA addressed in the June 2005 proposed disapproval.

    Response: Ohio has withdrawn the pertinent elements of its June 2003 SIP revision submission. Thus, no portion of this submission remains pending.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is determining that its October 26, 2010, rulemaking was in error to the extent that it appeared to approve revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 beyond the revision to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Through this action, EPA is clarifying that in the October 26, 2010, action, the Agency did not approve any revisions to OAC 3745-17-03 except for the specific revision to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) requested by the state. But for that change, the currently applicable version of OAC 3745-17-03 in the Ohio SIP is the version effective in the state on January 31, 1998, approved by EPA on October 16, 2007. The currently applicable version of OAC 3745-17-03 in the Ohio SIP does not contain any revisions addressed in EPA's proposed approval and disapproval on June 27, 2005. This action establishes that the codification of EPA's October 26, 2010, action, in relevant part at 40 CFR 52.1870(c)(151)(i)(A), is clarified pursuant to the authority of Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6) to codify the approval of only the revised cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) and not of any other portions of OAC 3745-17-03. In particular, EPA in that action did not approve any revisions related to OAC 3745-17-03(B).

    On April 3, 2013, EPA used its authority under section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act to amend the erroneous codification in its October 26, 2010, rulemaking without notice and comment rulemaking. In that rulemaking, EPA corrected the erroneous statements and the misleading codification to reflect more clearly that EPA had only approved the one narrow revision requested by the state in OAC 3745-17-03, i.e., the revision of the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Thus, effective April 3, 2013, the Code of Federal Regulations has properly reflected the corrected codification. In response to a petition for reconsideration, EPA today is replacing that prior correction with an error correction pursuant to section 110(k)(6). Nevertheless, during the pendency of the current rulemaking pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA opted not to stay or revoke the correction action of April 3, 2013, to avoid exacerbating the misimpressions caused by the October 26, 2010, error. Therefore, the status quo is that the Code of Federal Regulations already reflects the corrected codification.

    Ordinarily, a rulemaking establishing a corrected codification would include not just a preamble but would also include a codification section, in which the Office of the Federal Register is instructed to amend the applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. However, this action involves circumstances in which the pertinent section of the Code of Federal Regulations already correctly reflects the EPA approved version of OAC 3745-17-03, as a result of action taken April 3, 2013. Conceptually, this action replaces the pertinent revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated on April 3, 2013, with identical revisions pursuant to this action. In practical terms, the net effect of this action is no change in the Code of Federal Regulations. It is inappropriate to provide a null set of instructions, to instruct the Office of the Federal Register to make no changes to the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, this action includes no instructions to the Office of the Federal Register, no requested revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations, and indeed no codification section. As a result, the Office of the Federal Register's records will show the pertinent revisions as being made April 3, 2013. Nevertheless, this action should be viewed as replacing those corrections, promulgated under the authority of Administrative Procedures Act section 553, with identical corrections, promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Action section 110(k)(6).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. This action merely corrects an error in EPA's prior action 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 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 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 January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 22, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28095 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary of the Interior 43 CFR Part 10 [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-19087; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] RIN 1024-AE00 Disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects, or Objects of Cultural Patrimony AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule provides procedures for the disposition of unclaimed human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990. It implements section 3(b) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective December 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 354-2204, email melanie_o'[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is responsible for implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA or Act) (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), including the issuance of appropriate regulations implementing and interpreting its provisions. NAGPRA addresses the rights of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations in certain human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, for which the Act uses the broader term “cultural items” (25 U.S.C. 3001(3)). Pursuant to Section 13 of NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3011), the Department of the Interior (Department) published the initial rules to implement NAGPRA in 1995 (60 FR 62158, December 4, 1995); those rules are now codified at 43 CFR part 10. Subsequently, the Department published additional rules concerning:

    • Civil penalties (68 FR 16354, April 3, 2003);

    • Future applicability (72 FR 13189, March 21, 2007); and

    • Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains (75 FR 12378, March 15, 2010).

    Section 3(b) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002 (b)) explicitly directs the Secretary to publish regulations for the disposition of unclaimed cultural items excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990. When we published the NAGPRA regulations on December 4, 1995, we reserved 43 CFR 10.7 for this purpose.

    This rule is limited to Federal lands, as NAGPRA provides that ownership or control of any cultural item excavated or discovered on, and removed from, tribal land after November 16, 1990, is in either a known lineal descendant (for human remains and associated funerary objects) or in the Indian tribe from whose tribal land the cultural items were removed, and does not require the lineal descendant or the Indian tribe to make a claim for the cultural items.

    Consultation regarding a proposed rule for § 10.7 began in 2005. On three separate occasions, we consulted with representatives of Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, and scientific organizations. We also consulted with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) during its scheduled meetings in Albuquerque, NM (November 2005); Washington, DC (April 2007); Phoenix, AZ (October 2007); and Washington, DC (November 2010).

    We published a proposed rule on October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64436). Public comment was invited for a 60-day period, ending December 30, 2013. The proposed rule also was posted on the National Park Service's National NAGPRA Program Web site. The Review Committee commented on the record on the proposed rule at a public meeting on November 6, 2013.

    Summary of and Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule

    During the comment period, we received 27 written comments on the proposed rule, contained in 20 separate submissions from 5 Indian tribes, 1 Indian organization, 1 non-federally recognized Indian group, 1 Native Hawaiian organization, 1 museum, 1 scientific organization, 3 Federal entities, 6 individual members of the public, and 1 anonymous commenter. All relevant comments on the proposed rule were considered during the final rulemaking.

    Final Rule 43 CFR 10.2 Definition of “Unclaimed Cultural Items”

    Comment 1: Four commenters stated that the definition of unclaimed cultural items should include the phrase “as used in § 10.7 of this part.”

    Our Response: The term “unclaimed cultural items” is used only in § 10.7 and therefore the specific reference is not needed.

    Comment 2: Three commenters stated that the definition of unclaimed cultural items should be expanded and the difference between the categories of unclaimed cultural items be clarified. One of these commenters added that the definition should provide a timeframe that structures how long cultural items must be held by the Federal agency prior to being classified as unclaimed.

    Our Response: We agree. In the final rule, we have revised the definition of unclaimed cultural items and clarified the difference between the categories. We have included a timeframe.

    Comment 3: Four commenters stated that the definition of unclaimed cultural items imposes an inappropriate time limit on Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to make claims for cultural items. One of these commenters added that the definition assumes Federal agencies have been proactive and have provided notice to all potential claimants.

    Our Response: A potential claimant may make a claim for unclaimed cultural items at any time prior to transfer or reinterment under this rule. While the rule establishes a timeframe for cultural items to become unclaimed, there is no timeline imposed for Federal agencies to transfer or to reinter cultural items. We feel the timeframes established by the definitions in this final rule strike an appropriate balance between assuring Federal agencies that the NAGPRA process will end at a certain time and granting non-claimant Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations an opportunity to request the transfer of these cultural items.

    Comment 4: One commenter stated that the definition of “disposition” in § 10.2(g)(5) should be changed to include disposition of unclaimed cultural items.

    Our Response: We agree. In this final rule, we have added a new paragraph at § 10.2 (g)(5)(iv).

    Comment 5: One commenter stated that a notice under § 10.6(c) is only required upon “proposed disposition,” and not upon the determination of an Indian tribe entitled to priority of custody. Therefore, publication of a notice under § 10.6(c) cannot be a determining factor in the definition of unclaimed cultural items.

    Our Response: A notice under § 10.6(c) is not dependent on an actual claim but is dependent on the existence of a potential claimant. Under section 3(a) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(a)), ownership or control of cultural items is transferred to the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization which “upon notice, states a claim. . .” The notice required by § 10.6(c) precedes a claim from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and is dependent only upon the identification of one or more Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations or lineal descendants as a potential claimant. Furthermore, that notice is the only communication to the public during the disposition process. Consequently, publication of a notice under § 10.6(c) is an appropriate factor for determining when cultural items become unclaimed.

    Comment 6: One commenter stated that reasonableness is not a criterion for transfer of custody under the disposition process established in § 10.6. The definition at § 10.2(h)(2)(ii) should read: “No Indian tribe with priority of custody has been identified.”

    Our Response: We believe, as a general matter, that Federal agencies should use reasonable efforts in complying with the requirements of NAGPRA. In addition, section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002 (a)(2)(C)) explicitly states that the cultural affiliation of cultural items is established using a reasonableness standard.

    Final Rule § 10.7(b)(1) Federal Agencies Must Report Unclaimed Cultural Items to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program

    Comment 7: One commenter stated that the term “has” is better defined by adding “possession or control” after it.

    Our Response: A Federal agency does not have “possession” or “control” of cultural items that are excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990, as the terms “possession” and “control” are defined in § 10.2. Instead, the Federal agency acts as caretaker or temporary custodian for these cultural items.

    Comment 8: One commenter stated that the phrase “a list of the items” should be replaced with “a list of currently held items.” The commenter also suggested that “the nature” of unclaimed items be better explained.

    Our Response: The sentence introducing § 10.7(b)(1) in this final rule (previously § 10.7(a)(1)) states the unclaimed cultural items on the list are items that the Federal agency “has.” We believe that the use of the present tense in the introductory sentence makes clear that the reporting requirement refers to unclaimed cultural items currently held by the Federal agency. The required description of “the nature of the unclaimed cultural items” is the same as the current requirement in a notice under 43 CFR 10.6(c). The purpose of both documents is the same—to provide information adequate to allow lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations to determine their interest in the cultural items under these regulations.

    Comment 9: One commenter stated that there is nothing in the statute that allows the National NAGPRA Program to create and maintain an inventory of cultural items that have been removed from Federal lands after 1990, unclaimed or otherwise. The commenter suggested that Federal agencies should convey periodic notices of the existence of unclaimed cultural items to potential claimants but not report those items to the National NAGPRA Program.

    Our Response: Section 3(b) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(b)) directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations for the disposition of unclaimed cultural items in consultation with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee and other interested parties. The Review Committee recommended that the National NAGPRA Program maintain a database of unclaimed cultural items. We have included the Review Committee's recommendation in this final rule. The list of unclaimed cultural items submitted to the National NAGPRA Program promotes transparency in the disposition of unclaimed cultural items by providing information adequate to allow lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations to determine their interest in cultural items under these regulations.

    Comment 10: Seven commenters stated that the list of unclaimed cultural items should include additional information. Suggestions included the specific site of removal, the specific types of cultural items, the names of those consulted on the cultural items, and any potential claimants. One of these commenters added that the list of unclaimed cultural items should identify which items have potential claimants and which items have no identified potential claimants.

    Our Response: The proposed rule required that the list include a description of the place of discovery and the nature of the unclaimed cultural items, and these requirements are retained in this final rule at § 10.7(b)(1). We agree that information on consultation efforts under 43 CFR 10.5 could be useful for purposes of disposition of cultural items. In response to these comments, this final rule requires that the list include a summary of consultation efforts under § 10.5. A summary of consultation efforts inherently will include the identification of potential claimants. We have qualified that the description of the place of discovery or excavation, and removal, should generally protect any sensitive information.

    Comment 11: Three commenters questioned the date of the reporting requirement for Federal agencies to submit a list of unclaimed cultural items to the National NAGPRA Program. One of these commenters added that it would be difficult for Federal agencies to track when reports were required, as cultural items might have varying reporting deadlines. Two of these commenters added that the requirement should be shortened and lists should be submitted within one year or 90 days after excavation or discovery and removal.

    Our Response: By adding to the definition of unclaimed cultural items the specific circumstances under which cultural items become unclaimed in this final rule, we adjusted the dates for submitting a list of unclaimed cultural items to the Manager of the National NAGPRA Program. For those cultural items that meet the definition of unclaimed cultural items on the effective date of the regulation, the list must be submitted within one year. We feel this provides Federal agencies with sufficient time to prepare this list. For items that meet the definition of unclaimed cultural items after the effective date of the regulation, the list must be submitted within one year after the cultural items meet the definition. This allows for Federal agencies to submit lists of unclaimed cultural items at regular intervals. To simplify the reporting requirements, a Federal agency could submit a list of all unclaimed cultural items that met the definition for unclaimed cultural items during the previous year and still be compliant with the regulation.

    For example, under the definition at § 10.2 (h)(2)(ii), if a Federal agency:

    obtains cultural items from Federal lands on . . . and cannot reasonably identify any Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations or lineal descendants as a potential claimant by . . . then a list of the unclaimed items must be submitted by . . . January 19, 2016 January 19, 2018 January 19, 2019. May 23, 2016 May 23, 2018 May 23, 2019. October 16, 2016 October 16, 2018 October 16, 2019. December 5, 2016 December 5, 2018 December 5, 2019.

    In this example, a list submitted on January 18, 2019, of all unclaimed cultural items that met the definition during calendar year 2018 would satisfy the requirements of this final rule.

    Alternately, under the definition at § 10.2 (h)(2)(i), if a Federal agency:

    obtains cultural items from Federal lands on . . . and publishes a notice under § 10.6(c) after determining the lineal descendant, Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization that appears to be entitled to ownership or control on . . . and no Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization submits a claim, or no lineal descendant responds to the notice by . . . then a list of the unclaimed items must be submitted by . . . January 19, 2016 January 18, 2018 January 18, 2019 January 18, 2020. May 23, 2016 May 22, 2018 May 22, 2019 May 22, 2020. October 16, 2016 October 15, 2018 October 15, 2019 October 15, 2020. December 5, 2016 December 4, 2018 December 4, 2019 December 4, 2020.

    In this example, a list submitted on January 17, 2020, of all unclaimed cultural items that met the definition during calendar year 2019 would satisfy the requirements of this final rule.

    Comment 12: Five commenters stated that the National NAGPRA Program should be required to post the lists submitted by Federal agencies to its Web site.

    Our Response: The National NAGPRA Program publishes information on summaries, inventories, and notices on its Web site, and will publish similar information for these lists.

    Final Rule § 10.7(b)(2) Federal Agencies Must Care for Unclaimed Cultural Items Consistent With the Federal Curation Regulations at 36 CFR Part 79

    Comment 13: Seven commenters requested an expansion of the language in the proposed rule, including adding language directly from 36 CFR part 79 in the text of § 10.7. Some of these commenters noted that some cultural items under NAGPRA do not fit within the definitions established by 36 CFR part 79.

    Our Response: This final rule requires Federal agencies to care for and manage all unclaimed cultural items under NAGPRA in a manner consistent with but not pursuant to 36 CFR part 79. Even unclaimed cultural items that do not fit the definitions of 36 CFR part 79 must be provided with the same level of care and management as those items that are covered by 36 CFR part 79. There is no need to include the text at 36 CFR part 79 in this final rule.

    Comment 14: One commenter suggested that, in addition to 36 CFR part 79, unclaimed cultural items should be cared for in accordance with a Plan of Action if one was prepared under § 10.5(e).

    Our Response: As long as there is no conflict with this final rule, a Plan of Action prepared under § 10.5(e) related to the care and management of unclaimed cultural items that is consistent with 36 CFR part 79 and already in place may still be used.

    Final Rule § 10.7(b)(3) Federal Agencies Must Consider and Respect the Traditions of Identified Potential Claimants to the Maximum Extent Feasible

    Comment 15: Three commenters stated that there should be respect for cultural practices of potential claimants to unclaimed cultural items.

    Our Response: We agree, and in the final rule we clarified that the potential claimants referenced in this section are the potential claimants listed in a notice of intended disposition.

    Comment 16: Five commenters stated that the word “feasible” was vague and should be replaced with “permitted under law.”

    Our Response: There are no applicable laws that require consideration or respect of potential claimants to unclaimed cultural items. The suggested wording is more restrictive and could result in less consideration for the traditions of potential claimants. We believe that the word “feasible” provides Federal agencies with appropriate discretion to respect the desires of potential claimants listed in a notice of intended disposition, and better aligns with the existing requirements at § 10.5(e)(7).

    Final Rule § 10.7(c) Federal Agencies May Transfer Control of Unclaimed Cultural Items

    Comment 17: Five commenters approved of the process for transferring control of unclaimed cultural items to other Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. One of these commenters suggested concurrence with any disposition plan should be required from any non-claiming Indian tribes. One of these commenters suggested that tribal laws or customs of the Indian tribe with the closest cultural relationship to the unclaimed cultural items should be followed. One of these commenters suggested the word “another” before Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization should not be used and “an” should be substituted.

    Our Response: The transferee of unclaimed cultural items will have the right to control the disposition of the cultural items, as no potential claimant will have made a claim. Consequently, we have specified in this final rule that the transfer of cultural items is conditioned on the transferee agreeing to accept transfer and treat the cultural items according to the transferee's own laws and customs. Also, in this final rule we have specified that the transferee in question is an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that is not an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with a potential claim to the unclaimed cultural items.

    Comment 18: Three commenters stated that transfer should be allowed to Indian groups that are not federally recognized, and that § 10.7 should include the same authority to transfer as applied to culturally unidentifiable human remains in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(ii)(A).

    Our Response: Because this was not proposed, including non-federally recognized Indian groups among the potential transferees of cultural items is beyond the scope of this final rule. This comment will be considered during any proposed revision of these regulations in their entirety.

    Final Rule § 10.7(d) Federal Agencies May Reinter Unclaimed Human Remains or Funerary Objects

    Comment 19: One commenter stated that reinterment should be noted as satisfactory for the requirement to care and manage cultural items consistent with 36 CFR part 79.

    Our Response: Title 36 CFR part 79 does not address reinterment. Under this final rule, the requirement to care for and manage unclaimed cultural items consistent with 36 CFR part 79 does not impinge on, or otherwise affect, the discretion of a Federal agency to transfer or reinter cultural items for which it acts as caretaker or temporary custodian.

    Comment 20: Three commenters stated that the draft rule unfairly emphasized reinterment and precluded options for other disposition strategies, including cooperative curation agreements or future claims. One of these commenters also felt allowing reinterment violates tribal rights as established in the Act in section 11 (25 U.S.C. 3009).

    Our Response: This final rule provides a Federal agency with the discretion to transfer or reinter unclaimed cultural items. It does not require either of these actions. Also, this final rule is consistent with sections 3(e) and 11(1)(B) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(e) and 3009(1)(B), respectively). In order to take the actions under sections 3(e) and 11(1)(B) of the Act, an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization must first have control of the cultural items in question.

    Comment 21: Five commenters stated that the draft rule should put more emphasis on reinterment and require Federal agencies to justify not reinterring unclaimed cultural items. One of these commenters suggested that Federal agencies should use field documentation procedures and immediately rebury any human remains discovered on Federal land.

    Our Response: This final rule provides a Federal agency with the discretion to reinter unclaimed human remains or funerary objects according to applicable interment laws or policy. Requiring a Federal agency to immediately rebury human remains or funerary objects removed from Federal land contradicts section 3(a) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(a)).

    Comment 22: Two commenters stated that reinterment should require the concurrence of any potential claimants or consulting Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and any reinterment should be done in accordance with the tribal laws and customs of the potential claimants. One of these commenters felt any application of state law in reinterment should be restricted.

    Our Response: An Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that has been identified as a potential claimant in a notice of intended disposition but has not made a claim does not control the right of disposition of human remains or funerary objects. The concurrence of such potential claimants or consulting Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations with a proposed reburial of unclaimed human remains or funerary objects, and the conduct of the reburial in accordance with their laws and customs, are not legally required. Moreover, requiring a Federal agency to obtain the concurrence of the potential claimants very likely would be infeasible where there are multiple such Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, each having different laws and customs. However, this rule does not preclude a Federal agency from consulting with any potential claimant on the proposed reinterment of unclaimed human remains or funerary objects and on having the reburial conducted in accordance with their laws and customs. As for restricting the application of State law to the reinterment of unclaimed human remains or funerary objects, we have eliminated altogether the provision in the proposed rule allowing for the offer of human remains or funerary objects for disposition according to State or other law or policy.

    Final Rule § 10.7(e) Federal Agencies Must Follow Certain Requirements Prior to Transferring Control or Reinterring Under Paragraphs (c) and (d)

    Comment 23: Seven commenters stated that any notice related to the transfer or reinterment of unclaimed cultural items should be published in the Federal Register, either in addition to or in place of a notice in a newspaper. Three of these commenters suggested posting the notices to the National NAGPRA Program Web site in addition to other forms of notice.

    Our Response: We believe that requiring notices to be published in newspapers is consistent with other notice requirements currently required under the regulations at § 10.6 implementing section 3 of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002). This comment will be considered during any proposed revision of these regulations in their entirety. In light of technological changes since the promulgation of § 10.6, we have provided a second form of notice of proposed transfer of cultural items or reinterment of unclaimed human remains or funerary objects through postings on the National NAGPRA Program's Web site.

    Comment 24: One commenter stated that the notice should include the previous determination of the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with priority of custody, if any (e.g., aboriginal land determination), and not only the “affiliation, if any, of the unclaimed cultural items.”

    Our Response: In response to this comment, the final rule requires that the notice include a summary of consultation efforts under § 10.5. A summary of consultation efforts inherently will include the identification of any potential claimants.

    Comment 25: One commenter stated that a newspaper with general circulation “in the area in which each potential claimant now resides” is impractical. Disposition could possibly be to all Indian tribes or NHOs with standing under the Act.

    Our Response: In the case where potential claimants have been identified, the locations of the newspapers where a notice of proposed transfer or reinterment is published under this final rule are identical to the locations of the newspapers where a notice of intended disposition was published under § 10.6(c). In the case of cultural items for which no potential claimant could be identified, the location where a notice of proposed transfer or reinterment is published is only the area in which the cultural items were excavated or discovered, and removed, as there are no potential claimants for these cultural items.

    Comment 26: One commenter stated that there was no process provided if an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization asserts priority of ownership or control under section 3(a) of the Act and § 10.6 . If the claim is determined to be valid, disposition would occur under § 10.6(c) and not under § 10.7, as the cultural items would no longer be unclaimed.

    Our Response: If an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization states a valid claim for cultural items appearing in a notice of proposed transfer or reinterment under § 10.7, the cultural items are no longer unclaimed. As the Federal agency will no longer have the discretion to proceed with a transfer or reinterment under this final rule, the disposition of these cultural items will proceed under § 10.6(c). If the valid claim is from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization already listed in a notice of intended disposition, and if there are no competing claims, the Federal agency will transfer the right of control over the cultural items to the claimant. If the valid claim is from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not already listed in a notice of intended disposition, the Federal agency will follow the notice provision under § 10.6(c) prior to any transfer.

    Final Rule § 10.7(a) The Secretary Has the Authority To Promulgate the Rule on Unclaimed Cultural Items

    Comment 27: Two commenters suggested moving the statement on the purpose of this rule from the end of the rule to the beginning of the rule.

    Our Response: We agree. Proposed rule § 10.7(e) has been renumbered § 10.7(a) in this final rule.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on the preceding comments and responses, the drafters have made the following changes to the proposed rule language:

    • § 10.2(g)(5)(iv). This section specifies that disposition of unclaimed cultural items is established under § 10.7 of these regulations.

    • § 10.2(h)(2)(i). This section specifies that cultural items are unclaimed under the following circumstances: The Federal agency publishes a notice of intended disposition, and the agency has not received any claim from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or any response from a lineal descendant to the notice within one year of publishing the notice.

    • § 10.2(h)(2)(ii). This section specifies that cultural items are unclaimed under the following circumstances: The Federal agency knows, or has reason to know, that cultural items have been excavated or discovered on, and removed from Federal lands; for two years, the Federal agency has tried to reasonably identify any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or a lineal descendant, as a potential claimant, and at the end of the two-year period, the Federal agency cannot reasonably identify an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or a lineal descendant, as a potential claimant.

    • § 10.7(a) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(b) in this final rule.

    • § 10.7(a)(1) has been renumbered § 10.7(b)(1) in this final rule. This section specifies that the list of unclaimed cultural items must include a summary of consultation efforts under § 10.5, and adjusts the deadline for submitting a list of unclaimed cultural items. For those cultural items that meet the definition of unclaimed cultural items on the effective date of the regulation, a list of items must be submitted within one year. For items that meet the definition of unclaimed cultural items after the effective date of the regulation, a list of items must be submitted within one year of the cultural items becoming unclaimed.

    • § 10.7(a)(3) has been renumbered § 10.7(b)(3) in this final rule. This section specifies that the potential claimants who are referenced are the potential claimants listed in a notice of intended disposition.

    • § 10.7(b) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(c) in this final rule. This section specifically identifies the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to which control may be transferred under this rule as an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that does not have a potential claim to the cultural items. Also, this section specifies that such transfer is conditioned on the transferee agreeing to accept transfer and treat the cultural items according to the transferee's own laws and customs.

    • § 10.7(c) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(d) in this final rule. This section specifies that, under this rule, any reinterment of unclaimed human remains or funerary objects by the Federal agency must be according to applicable interment laws. Also, the provision in the proposed rule regarding the offer of human remains or funerary objects for disposition according to State or other law has been eliminated.

    • § 10.7(d) of the proposed rule has been renumbered § 10.7(e) in this final rule.

    • § 10.7(d)(3) has been renumbered § 10.7(e)(3) in this final rule. This section specifies that the Manager of the National NAGPRA Program will post information received from the Federal agency under § 10.7(e)(2) of this rule, on the National NAGPRA Program's Web site.

    • § 10.7(e) has been renumbered § 10.7(a) in this final rule.

    Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 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, E.O. 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

    The Department of the Interior certifies that 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 rule only pertains to the disposition of cultural items in the custody of a Federal agency for which potential claimants have chosen not to take ownership or control, or when no potential claimants have been identified. Thus, this rule does not constitute a significant economic burden.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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, local or tribal 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 (UMRA)

    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 takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required. No taking of property will occur as a result of this rule.

    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. 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 (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

    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. In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum entitled “Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, April 29, 1994); Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Implementation of Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 5, 2009); and the Secretary of the Interior's Order No. 3317—Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation With Indian Tribes (Dec. 1, 2011); we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has a potential effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. The rule was developed in consultation with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, which includes members nominated by Indian tribes and traditional religious leaders. Formal consultation with the Review Committee was held on November 16-17, 2005, in Albuquerque, NM; on April 19-20, 2007, in Washington, DC; on October 15-16, 2007, in Phoenix, AZ; on May 15-16, 2008, in De Pere, WI; on October 30-31, 2009, in Sarasota, FL; and on November 18-19, 2010, in Washington, DC. Also, the Review Committee had an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule following publication, which it did at a public meeting on November 6, 2013, in Mt. Pleasant, MI.

    Formal consultation with Indian tribes began on November 15, 2005, in Albuquerque, NM, and continued on April 18, 2007, in Washington, DC, and on October 14, 2007, in Phoenix, AZ. We have fully considered tribal and Review Committee comments in the final rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in 43 CFR part 10 and assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0144. This rule does not contain any new information collections that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency 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

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(i): “Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

    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 proposed rule and this final rule were prepared by staff of the National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service; Office of Regulations and Special Park Uses, National Park Service; and Office of the Solicitor, Division of Parks and Wildlife and Division of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 10

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaiian Natives, Historic preservation, Indians-claims, Indians-lands, Museums, Penalties, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Department amends 43 CFR part 10 as follows:

    PART 10—NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 470dd; 25 U.S.C. 9, 3001 et seq.

    2. Amend § 10.2 by adding paragraph (g)(5)(iv) and paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 10.2 Definitions.

    (g) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (iv) Disposition of unclaimed human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony is governed by § 10.7.

    (h) Unclaimed cultural items means Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony:

    (1) That have been excavated or discovered on, and removed from, Federal lands after November 16, 1990, and

    (2) Whose disposition under 25 U.S.C. 3002(a) and § 10.6 of this part has not occurred because either:

    (i) Within one year after publication of a notice under § 10.6(c) of this part, no Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization has sent a written claim for the cultural items to the appropriate Federal agency, or no lineal descendant has responded to a notice for human remains and associated funerary objects; or

    (ii) Within two years after knowing or having reason to know that cultural items were excavated or discovered, and removed, the appropriate Federal agency could not reasonably identify any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization or lineal descendant as a potential claimant.

    3. Add § 10.7 to read as follows:
    § 10.7 Disposition of unclaimed human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony.

    (a) This section carries out section 3(b) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(b)) regarding unclaimed cultural items.

    (b) A Federal agency that has unclaimed cultural items (human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) must:

    (1) Submit a list of the items to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program that describes the general place of discovery or excavation, and removal; the nature of the unclaimed cultural items; and a summary of consultation efforts under § 10.5 of this part. This list must be received by December 5, 2016, or within 1 year after the cultural items have become unclaimed under § 10.2(h), whichever is later;

    (2) Care for and manage unclaimed cultural items consistent with the regulations at 36 CFR part 79; and

    (3) To the maximum extent feasible, consider and respect the traditions of any potential claimants listed in a notice under § 10.6(c) concerning the unclaimed cultural items, including, but not limited to, traditions regarding housing, maintenance, and preservation.

    (c) Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, a Federal agency that has unclaimed cultural items may, upon request, transfer them to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that is not a potential claimant and agrees:

    (1) To accept transfer; and

    (2) To treat them according to the laws and customs of the transferee.

    (d) Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, a Federal agency that has unclaimed human remains or funerary objects may reinter them according to applicable interment laws.

    (e) Before a Federal agency makes a transfer or reinterment under paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section, it must:

    (1) Submit the list required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program; and

    (2) Publish a notice of the proposed transfer or reinterment in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which the unclaimed cultural items were excavated or discovered, and removed, and, if applicable, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which each potential claimant now resides.

    (i) The notice must explain the nature of the unclaimed cultural items, summarize consultation efforts under § 10.5, and solicit claims under the priority of ownership or control in section 3(a) of the Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(a)) and § 10.6.

    (ii) The notice must be published at least two times at least a week apart.

    (iii) The transfer or reinterment may not take place until at least 30 days after publication of the second notice to allow time for any claimants under the priority of ownership or control in section 3(a) of the Act and § 10.6 to come forward.

    (3) Send to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program a copy of the notice published under paragraph (d)(2) of this section and information on when and in what newspaper(s) the notice was published. The National NAGPRA Program will post information from published notices on its Web site.

    Dated: October 21, 2015. Michael Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks .
    [FR Doc. 2015-28041 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 2 [ET Docket No. 15-170; FCC 15-135] Radio Frequency Devices, FCC Form 740 Temporary Suspension AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; temporary suspension.

    SUMMARY:

    This document temporarily waives the requirements of the Commission's rules that govern the submission of information associated with FCC Form 740 concerning imported Radio Frequency (RF) devices. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is implementing a new electronic filing system which is scheduled to become fully operational by December 2016. In light of steps taken related to the transition to the new CBP system, parties importing RF devices will lose the ability to electronically file the required FCC information. The Commission does not believe that it would serve the public interest to establish an alternative means for importers to submit this information with us during the pendency of the rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Effective December 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2702.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order, ET Docket No. 15-170, FCC 15-135, adopted October 16, 2015 and released October 19, 2015. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Internet site at www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    Synopsis of the Suspension Order

    1. The Commission took action to temporarily waive the requirements in §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 of the Commission's rules that govern the submission of information in connection with imported Radio Frequency (RF) devices, effective July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, for the following reasons:

    2. Section 2.1203 of the Commission's rules states that no RF device may be imported unless the importer or ultimate consignee (or their designated customs broker) declares that the device meets the conditions of entry set forth in our importation rules. Section 2.1205 provides two ways to make this declaration. At ports of entry where electronic filing with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is not available, the importer completes FCC Form 740 and attaches a copy to its customs import papers. Where electronic customs filing is available, the importer may submit the information electronically as part of its entry documentation submission to CBP. Currently, nearly all submissions are made electronically through the CBP's Automated Commercial System (ACS), and very few paper filings are submitted.

    3. CBP is deploying a new electronic filing system, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), which will not have the capability for importers to submit the FCC-required Form 740 information electronically. FCC-related importation filings can continue to be submitted electronically via ACS or paper until July 1, 2016. According to the current CBP schedule, as of July 1, 2016, CBP will no longer accept filings made via ACS.

    4. The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the above-captioned proceedings to update the rules that govern the evaluation and approval of RF devices, 80 FR 46900 (August 6, 2015). In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend § 2.1203 and remove § 2.1205, thereby eliminating the declaration and associated filing requirements. While the ongoing rulemaking may ultimately result in the elimination, modification, or retention of the §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 requirements, the overall rulemaking proceeding is quite complex and it is possible that the Commission will be unable to reach and publish a final determination before July 1, 2016, the date upon which CBP will no longer accept the electronic filing of FCC Form 740s via ACS.

    5. If the Commission retains or modifies the Form 740 information filing requirement, parties will be precluded from filing electronically after July 1, 2016 outside of the ACE system. The ACE system would have to be modified to render that system capable of accepting FCC Form 740s, which would require appreciable amount of time and expense and may not be able to be implemented by July 1. This would mean that for some period of time after July 1, all the Form 740 filings would be made via paper. Such a result would be impractical. The Commission estimated that it would receive approximately 20,000 such forms each week, with the same number of forms submitted to CBP. In addition, numerous importers would also have to file with FDA or other agencies that may regulate a given device. Given the circumstances, the Commission found that, absent a waiver, there would be significant burdens associated with the ACE implementation for Form 740, for the CBP and FCC. If the Commission ultimately eliminates the Form 740 requirements, any efforts to modify ACE to accommodate Form 740 will have been unnecessary. On the other hand, if the Commission determines to require the Form 740 information filing, the necessary changes to the ACE can be made at that time.

    6. The timing of the Commission's open proceeding also introduces considerable regulatory uncertainty for the importation community that further supports the need for a waiver. Based on discussions with manufacturers with considerable importation volumes and import brokers and brokers' associations, the Commission determined that it could take a number of months for the members of the importation community to tailor their existing documentation and related processes to any new importation regime—even one that lifts burdens. Accordingly, this community needs to know whether its members should begin making the necessary preparations for compliance with a paper-based regime in July, or whether they can continue using their existing processes with some assurance that they will not be expected to make a flash cut to a paper filing process come July.

    7. Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules provides that “[a]ny provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown.” For the above stated reasons, the Commission found good cause to temporarily waive the above-described filing requirements in §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 of the rules effective July 1, 2016, and extending for six months. Assuming that the waiver remains necessary as of July 1, the Commission anticipates that any difficulties associated with not gathering data through Form 740 will be relatively limited in time and scope. The Commission will work with CBP to draw on other data to satisfy any informational needs that are currently provided through the operation of §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205. If the Commission decides to retain the requirement that importers submit some or all of the information required by §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205, it will set forth appropriate revised filing procedures at that time. To the extent that a waiver remains necessary as of July 1, our action only affects the manner in which the Commission collects the information about imported RF equipment that is associated with the requirements of §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205. The general proscription against importation of non-authorized equipment is unaffected and will remain fully in effect.

    8. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission will temporarily waive the requirements of §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205, effective July 1, 2016. The waiver will remain in effect through December 31, 2016. The Commission also delegated authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology to extend this date, but no later than the effective date of any decision regarding §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 in the NPRM proceeding.

    9. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r), and Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 1.3, that §§ 2.1203 and 2.1205 of the Commission's rules and Regulations, ARE TEMPORARILY WAIVED, effective July 1, 2016, to the Federal Communications Commission.

    Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28138 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 214 Thursday, November 5, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 920 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0056; FV15-920-1 PR] Kiwifruit Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.025 to $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of growers of kiwifruit operating within the area of production. Assessments upon kiwifruit handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins on August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by November 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected], or [email protected] Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.025 to $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit.

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

    For the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

    The Committee met on July 17 and September 16, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 fiscal year expenditures of $132,725 and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit handled to fund Committee expenses. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $120,925. The assessment rate of $0.040 is $0.015 more than the rate currently in effect. The Committee's recommended 2015-16 expenditures are $11,800 higher than last year's budgeted expenditures. The primary reason for the increase is to provide funding for research. When applied to the Committee's crop estimate for the 2015-16 fiscal year of 2,297,000 9-kilo volume-fill containers or equivalent, the current assessment rate of $0.025 would not generate sufficient assessment income to cover anticipated expenses. The proposed assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or its equivalent would generate assessment income of $91,880. Anticipated assessment income combined with financial reserve and interest income, would provide sufficient funds for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses while maintaining its financial reserve within the limit authorized under the order. (§ 920.42)

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $80,000 for management expenses, $14,000 for two financial audits, $14,330 for research, $7,500 for International Kiwifruit Organization (IKO) travel, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, and $2,500 membership fee to the IKO. Major budgeted expenses for the 2014-15 fiscal period were $80,000 for management expenses, $7,500 for a financial audit, $5,000 for handler audits, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, $2,500 for IKO membership, and $12,500 for IKO travel.

    The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering the amount of revenue needed to meet anticipated expenses divided by expected shipments of California kiwifruit. As previously mentioned, kiwifruit shipments for the 2015-16 fiscal period are estimated at 2,297,000 9-kilo volume-fill containers, which should provide $91,880 in assessment income. Anticipated assessment income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and $40,756 from the Committee's authorized financial reserve would provide sufficient funds for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses. It is anticipated that $29,119 would remain in the financial reserve at the end of July 2016, which would be within the maximum amount permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 920.42).

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

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

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

    There are approximately 178 kiwifruit growers in the production area and approximately 28 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    The National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) reported total California kiwifruit production for the 2014 season at 27,400 tons, with an average price of $1,190 per ton. Based on the average price and shipment information provided by NASS and the Committee, it could be concluded that the majority of kiwifruit handlers would be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. Based on kiwifruit production and price information, as well as the total number of California kiwifruit growers, average annual grower revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of California kiwifruit growers may also be classified as small entities.

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established by the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.025 to $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $132,725 and an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container. The proposed assessment rate of $0.040 is $0.015 higher than the 2014-15 rate. The quantity of assessable kiwifruit for the 2015-16 fiscal period is estimated at 2,297,000 9-kilo volume-fill containers. Thus, the $0.040 rate should provide $91,880 in assessment income. Anticipated assessment income derived from handler assessments, along with financial reserve funds and interest income, would provide sufficient revenue for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses, while maintaining its financial reserve within the maximum amount permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 920.42).

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $80,000 for management expenses, $14,000 for two financial audits, $14,330 for research, $7,500 for International Kiwifruit Organization (IKO) travel, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, and $2,500 membership fee to the IKO. Major budgeted expenses for the 2014-15 fiscal period were $80,000 for management expenses, $7,500 for a financial audit, $5,000 for handler audits, $2,500 membership fee to Buy California, $2,500 for IKO membership, and $12,500 for IKO travel.

    Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered alternative expenditure levels, to include maintaining the current assessment rate, but ultimately determined that the current assessment rate would generate insufficient revenue to meet its expenses.

    According to data from NASS, the season average producer price was $11.09 per 9-kilo volume-fill container in 2013 and $11.78 per 9-kilo volume-fill container in 2014. A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for 2015-16 could range between $11.09 and $11.78 per 9-kilo volume-fill container of assessable kiwifruit. Therefore, estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue could be between 0.34 percent and 0.36 percent.

    This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the California kiwifruit industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 17 and September 16, 2015, meetings, were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

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

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

    A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015-16 fiscal year began on August 1, 2015, handlers began shipping kiwifruit in September and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment apply to all assessable kiwifruit handled during the fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

    Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 920 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 920.213 is revised to read as follows:
    § 920.213 Assessment rate.

    On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit is established for kiwifruit grown in California.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28142 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3805; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-28-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Turbomeca S.A. ARRIEL 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with modification TU34 or TU34A installed. This proposed AD was prompted by torque conformation box (TCB) failures. This proposed AD would require inspecting the TCB for correct resistance values and removing TCBs that fail inspection before further flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the TCB which could lead to loss of engine thrust control and damage to the aircraft.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. 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-2015-3805; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; 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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3805; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-28-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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0177, dated August 25, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of torque conformation box (TCB) failures have been reported on engines incorporating mod TU34 or mod TU34A. Investigation concluded that these failures were caused by cracks on soldered joints of TCB resistors.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to limited power availability in a One Engine Inoperative (OEI) case, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3805.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for checking TCB resistance values. 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 France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspecting the TCB for correct resistance values and removing TCBs that fail inspection.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 300 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 1 hour to perform an inspection. We also estimate that 20% of these engines would fail the inspection and require TCB removal, which would take about 1 hour. 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 $30,600.

    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): Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2015-3805; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-28-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 4, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. ARRIEL 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with modification TU34 or TU34A installed.

    (d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by torque conformation box (TCB) failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the TCB, which could lead to loss of engine thrust control and damage to the aircraft.

    (e) Actions and Compliance

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

    (1) Within 600 engine flight hours (EFHs) or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, check the resistance values on the TCB. Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.3.2 of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015, to do the inspection. Repeat this inspection every 600 EFHs since last inspection.

    (2) Remove before further flight any TCB that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

    (f) 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].

    (g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected].

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0177, dated August 25, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-3805.

    (3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in paragraph (g)(4) of this proposed AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 28, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28011 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5318; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-035-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Quest Aircraft Design, LLC 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 Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of limited control yoke movement of the elevator control system due to cushion edging jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the elevator control system cushion edging for proper condition; replacing the cushion edging; and at a specified time terminating the repetitive inspections by installing wear pads on the elevator bearing assemblies. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21, 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 Quest Aircraft Design, LLC, 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864; telephone: (208) 263-1111; toll free: (866) 263-1112; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.questaircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2015-5318; 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:

    David Herron, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; phone: (425) 917-6469; fax: (425) 917-6591; 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-2015-5318; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-035-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 received a report that, during a preflight inspection, an operator noted limited travel of the control yoke on a Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplane. Upon further inspection of the control yoke system forward of the control yoke, cushion edging was found jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. The jammed edging prevented the control yoke from having full nose up and nose down travel. The operator also reported the same problem on a different KODIAK 100 airplane in which the cushion edging plastic portion separated from the metal track.

    Investigation revealed that over time the cushion edging may become worn and degrade. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the elevator control system cushion edging, which could restrict elevator control yoke movement and cause loss of control.

    Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14-07, dated August 26, 2014; Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI-105, Revision 00, not dated; Quest Aircraft KODIAK 100 Recommended Service Bulletin SB15-01, dated March 26, 2015; and Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Yoke Anti-Rotation Guide Wear Pad Upgrade, Report No. FSI-108, Revision 00, not dated. The service information describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the cushion edging installed on the elevator control anti-rotation guide for proper condition, wear, and security, and replacing if necessary; and removing the cushion edging and installing wear pads on the pilot and co-pilot arms of the elevator bearing assemblies as a terminating action to the repetitive inspections of the cushion edging. 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

    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 accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect the cushion edging on each side of the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 per inspection Not applicable $42.50 per inspection $2,550 per inspection. Required terminating action for repetitive inspections—replace cushion edging with wear pads 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $200 $455 $27,300.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace cushion edging 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $20 $105

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Quest Aircraft Design, LLC: Docket No. FAA-2015-5318; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-035-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 21, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplanes, all serial numbers 100-0001 through 100-0149, that are certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2730; Elevator Control System.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of limited control yoke movement due to cushion edging jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the elevator control system, which could result in loss of control.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspect Cushion Edging

    Before further flight after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours time-in-service or at every annual inspection, whichever comes first, until the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done, inspect the cushion edging, part number (P/N) M22529/2-3R-25, located on each side of the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot, P/N 100-619-0008, for the pilot and co-pilot control yoke assemblies, following section 5.1 Cushion Edging Inspection of Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI-105, Revision 00, not dated, as specified in Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14-07, dated August 26, 2014.

    (h) Replace Cushion Edging

    If damage or wear is found during any inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cushion edging following section 5.3 of Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI-105, Revision 00, not dated, as specified in Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14-07, dated August 26, 2014.

    (i) Install Wear Pads (Terminating Action for the Repetitive Inspections)

    Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, remove the cushion edging, P/N M22529/2-3R-25, installed on the elevator control anti-rotation guide, and install wear pads, P/N 100-619-0037, on the elevator bearing assembly link arm following section 5. Instructions, including all subsections, of Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Yoke Anti-Rotation Guide Wear Pad Upgrade, Report No. FSI-108, Revision 00, not dated, as specified in Quest Aircraft KODIAK 100 Recommended Service Bulletin SB15-01, dated March 26, 2015. Installing all four wear pads on the pilot and co-pilot arms of the elevator bearing assemblies terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Herron, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle ACO, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; phone: (425) 917-6469; fax: (425) 917-6591; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Quest Aircraft Design, LLC, 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864; telephone: (208) 263-1111; toll free: (866) 263-1112; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.questaircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 30, 2015. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28198 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AP10 Exempting Mental Health Peer Support Services From Copayments AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is withdrawing VA's proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014, to amend its regulation that governs VA services that are not subject to copayment requirements for inpatient hospital care or outpatient medical care. Specifically, the proposed rule would have amended the regulation to exempt mental health peer support services from having any required copayment. VA received no adverse comments concerning the proposed rule or its companion substantially identical direct final rule published in the Federal Register on the same date. In a companion document in this issue of the Federal Register, we are confirming that the direct final rule became effective on January 27, 2015. Accordingly, this document withdraws as unnecessary the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    The proposed rule published on November 28, 2014, 79 FR 70941, is withdrawn as of November 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin J. Cunningham, Director Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB6), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 382-2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014, 79 FR 70941, VA proposed to amend 38 CFR 17.108 to eliminate copayments for mental health peer support services. VA published a companion substantially identical direct final rule at 79 FR 70938, on the same date. The direct final rule and proposed rule each provided a 60-day comment period that ended on January 27, 2015. No adverse comments were received. Six comments that supported the rulemaking were received from the general public. One commenter also urged VA to exempt evidence-based, cost-effective primary care services from having a required copayment. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking, and therefore, VA is not making any changes to this rulemaking based on this comment.

    Because no adverse comments were received within the comment period, VA is withdrawing the proposed rule as unnecessary. In a companion document in this issue of the Federal Register, VA is confirming the effective date of the direct final rule, RIN 2900-AP11, published at 79 FR 70938.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 26, 2015, for publication.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Michael P. Shores, Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28255 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2016-2; Order No. 2793] Periodic Reporting AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal One Through Three). The Commission will consider Proposals One and Two at this time. Proposal Three will be held in abeyance. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: January 20, 2016. Reply Comments are due: March 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Proposals III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On October 8, 2015, the United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes to how the Postal Service accounts for the costs of competitive products in its periodic reports.1 Proposals One, Two, and Three are attached to the Petition along with a report created by Dr. Kevin Neels (Dr. Neels), an economic consultant, which supports each Proposal. UPS concurrently filed a non-public library reference with its Petition.2

    1 Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make Changes to Postal Service Costing Methodologies, October 8, 2015 (Petition).

    2 Notice of Filing Library Reference UPS-RM2016-2/LR-NP1, October 8, 2015.

    UPS explains that the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act freed the Postal Service from certain rate-making conditions so that it could better compete with private companies in the parcel markets. Petition at 3. UPS notes, however, that when regulated entities such as the Postal Service are allowed to compete with private companies, “the regulated entity has a natural incentive to leverage the monopoly revenues it is making from sales to its captive customers (here, those purchasing letter mail services) to finance the competitive ventures.” Id. at 2. UPS contends that in exchange for new pricing “freedoms,” and in recognition of the Postal Service's “inherent incentive” to expand its competitive ventures at the expense of its captive customers, Congress mandated that “the Postal Service could not subsidize its expansion into competitive parcel delivery markets with revenues it enjoys from the products it sells pursuant to the letter monopoly.” Id. at 3, 4. UPS cites 39 U.S.C. 3633, which prohibits the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products; requires that each competitive product cover its own attributable costs; and mandates that competitive products collectively cover an appropriate share of the Postal Service's institutional costs.3

    3Id. at 4-5. See also 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).

    UPS states that it is filing this Petition after an “exhaustive analysis” of the Postal Service's cost methodologies. Id. at 5. UPS asserts that its analysis reveals that the Postal Service is “failing to ensure that its competitive products business is recovering all costs fairly attributable to that business” and that the Postal Service “is not accounting fully for the true costs” of its competitive products. Id. at 5-6. UPS states that its analysis shows the Postal Service is misclassifying a significant amount of variable costs; 4 therefore, “competitive products are not bearing the full scope of the variable costs attributable to them.” Id. at 7. Accordingly, UPS presents three proposals to change the Postal Service's current costing methodologies. Id. at 1.

    4 The term variable cost is a relatively new term for Commission proceedings. It is not the same as volume variable cost, which is based on marginal cost. Each piece of mail that enters the postal system imposes an additional cost. As mail pieces continue to be entered into the postal system, these additional costs increase in total. Thus these costs vary with volume. The cost imposed on the postal system by the last piece entered into the system is the marginal cost. The additional costs imposed by previous pieces entered into the postal system are called inframarginal costs. The sum of all of these additional costs, including the cost of the last piece, is called variable costs.

    In Proposal One, UPS recommends that the Postal Service incorporate all the variable costs, including the inframarginal costs attributable to individual products.5 In Proposal Two, UPS recommends that certain costs currently identified as fixed be reclassified as fully or partially variable and subsequently attributed to individual products. Petition, Proposal Two at 1. In Proposal Three, UPS recommends that the Commission increase the “appropriate share” pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), from 5.5 percent 6 to 24.6 percent, which is the competitive products' 3-year trailing average of the share of total attributable costs. Petition, Proposal Three at 1.

    5 Petition, Proposal One at 1. UPS refers to the marginal costs associated with every preceding piece of mail as “inframarginal costs.” Id.

    6See 39 CFR 3015.7(c). The Commission most recently retained this share at 5.5 percent. See generally, Docket No. RM2012-3, Order Reviewing Competitive Products' Appropriate Share Contribution to Institutional Costs, August 23, 2012 (Order No. 1449).

    II. Summary of Proposals A. Proposal One

    In Proposal One, UPS explains that in order to attribute costs to products, the Postal Service first estimates the marginal cost of various cost segments. Petition, Proposal One at 1-2. UPS notes, however, that the Postal Service's cost attribution method “effectively assumes that the cost associated with adding the last unit of mail is identical to the cost associated with adding each and every unit of mail.” Id. at 4 (emphasis omitted).

    UPS argues that this is only a reasonable assumption when marginal costs are consistent throughout all volume levels. Id. UPS claims that when marginal costs decline as the level of volume increases, the cost associated with the last mail piece is lower than the marginal cost associated with producing each preceding piece. Id. Thus, it argues that by attributing only the marginal cost of the last piece of mail, the Postal Service is failing to attribute the higher marginal costs associated with producing every preceding piece in those cost components that exhibit declining marginal costs. Id.

    UPS recommends that the Postal Service include the inframarginal costs of individual products in its calculation of the costs attributable to those products. Petition at 1. It argues that distribution keys, which are currently used to calculate “volume variable” costs, can be used to distribute inframarginal costs to products. Id. Proposal One at 19, 20. UPS states that “[a]ttributing inframarginal costs to products using the existing distribution keys is just as reliable as attributing marginal costs to products using those distribution keys. Id. at 20.

    B. Proposal Two

    In Proposal Two, UPS contends that the Postal Service has a “systematic tendency to misclassify costs as fixed.” Petition at 10. Such fixed costs, which are a major component of institutional costs, are not attributed to specific products.7 UPS asserts that the Postal Service's misclassification of certain costs as fixed allows it to “largely ignore” such costs when setting the prices for its competitive products. Petition at 10. Based on UPS's belief that fixed and institutional costs are “borne disproportionately” by market dominant products, it concludes that the Postal Service's systemic misclassification of costs as fixed results in the improper subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products, in violation of 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1). Id. Proposal Two at 5.

    7Id. Proposal Two at 2. 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3) requires that competitive products cover an “appropriate share” of institutional costs.

    Relying on Dr. Neels' analysis, UPS identifies 37 cost pools that it believes should be reclassified as wholly or partially variable. Id. at 1. UPS contends that Dr. Neels' analysis reveals that over $3 billion in costs have been misclassified as fixed, and thus, have not been properly attributed to products. Id. at 8. UPS requests that the Commission attribute these reclassified costs to specific products based on their respective shares of overall attributable costs in the prior fiscal year. Id. at 10. Using this methodology, UPS estimates that over $700 million of costs have not been properly attributed to the Postal Service's competitive products. Id. at 8.

    C. Proposal Three

    Unlike Proposals One and Two, Proposal Three does not involve issues related to the proper attribution of variable costs to the Postal Service's products. Rather, in Proposal Three, UPS requests that the Commission reconsider the “appropriate share” of institutional costs that must be covered by competitive products. Petition, Proposal Three at 1. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(b), the Commission is required to review the appropriate share requirement at least every 5 years to determine if the percentage should be “retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated.” The current appropriate share, set by the Commission in CY 2012, is 5.5 percent. See Order 1449 at 27.

    In light of competitive products' volume growth in recent years, along with the Postal Service's significant investments in its competitive business, UPS believes that the current appropriate share percentage does not reflect current market conditions. Petition, Proposal Three at 6-14. To ensure that the Postal Service competes fairly, UPS asserts that the appropriate share percentage should be set at a level that approximates the fixed costs that a private competitor must bear. Id. at 14. Accordingly, UPS recommends that the appropriate share percentage be set at 24.6 percent. Id. UPS states that this percentage is equal to the average of the “previous three years of attributable cost shares” for competitive products. Id. UPS also encourages the Commission to adopt a mechanism that would adjust the appropriate share percentage each year in order to account for the fluctuation of postal cost and market realities. Id. at 14-15.

    III. Initial Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-2 for consideration of Proposals One and Two as raised by the Petition. The Commission holds Proposal Three in abeyance until it has completed its review of Proposals One and Two. As discussed above, Proposals One and Two both relate to the proper attribution of all variable costs to the Postal Service's products. Given the interrelatedness of these two proposals, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider them together in this docket. However, as UPS itself discussed in its Petition, if Proposals One and Two are adopted, unattributed costs will decline from $34.2 billion in FY 2014 to approximately $17 billion. Petition at 11-12.

    Given the potentially significant impact that Proposals One and Two could have on the size of the Postal Service's unattributed costs, and given that Proposal Three relates to the portion of these costs that should be covered by competitive products, the Commission finds that consideration of Proposal Three should be delayed until the impact of Proposals One and Two are known. Both the Commission and the mailing community will benefit from having this information before evaluating UPS's proposed adjustments to the appropriate share requirement. Further, the Commission must allocate its finite resources across multiple priorities. Simultaneously considering all three proposals may result in the Commission having insufficient resources to bring to bear on other critical responsibilities.

    Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on Proposals One and Two in the Petition no later than January 20, 2016. Reply comments are due no later than March 25, 2016. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-2 for consideration of Proposals One and Two from the Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make Changes to Postal Service Costing Methodologies, filed October 8, 2015.

    2. Consideration of Proposal Three from the Petition is held in abeyance until the Commission has completed its review of Proposals One and Two.

    3. Comments are due no later than January 20, 2016. Reply comments are due no later than March 25, 2016.

    4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth E. Richardson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28127 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0434; FRL-9936-61-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, Louisiana AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Louisiana. These rule revisions are the 2007 General Revisions, and 2008-2010 Miscellaneous Rule Revisions to the SIP that were submitted by the State of Louisiana. The overall intended outcome is to make the approved Louisiana SIP consistent with current Federal and State requirements. This action is in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act (the Act).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0434, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Alan Shar at [email protected].

    Mail or delivery: Air Planning Section Chief (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0434. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information through www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional information on submitting comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Alan Shar (6PD-L), telephone (214) 665-6691, email [email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact Alan Shar.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Background

    On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977) EPA finalized approval of general rule revisions to the Louisiana SIP which covered the years of 1996-2006.

    We are now proposing to approve two revisions to the Louisiana SIP submitted to EPA by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The first submittal is the 2007 general revisions submitted to EPA with a letter dated August 14, 2009. The second submittal is the 2008-2010 miscellaneous rules revisions submitted to EPA with a letter dated August 29, 2013.

    Evaluation

    The 2008-2010 miscellaneous rules revisions apply to Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33: III, Chapters 7 and 13. The 2007 general revisions apply to LAC 33: III, Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 25. The Louisiana rule revisions submittals, their corresponding Chapters, and our actions are shown in Table 1 below.

    Table 1—Submittals, Their Corresponding Chapters, and Actions Submittals Calendar year Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapters acting upon Chapters not
  • acting upon
  • Miscellaneous rules 2008-2010 7, 13 General revisions 2007 1, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, and 25 2, 5, 6, and 15.

    Certain provisions of the 2007 general revisions are not being acted upon here because they were withdrawn or we plan to act on them separately in the future. In a letter dated October 2, 2015 LDEQ withdrew its revisions to Chapter 15 from our review. The October 2, 2015 withdrawal letter is available in this docket. The EPA plans to act on SIP revisions to Chapters 2, 5, and 6 separately in the future.

    There is no increase in the amount of emissions or number of sources affected as a result of ministerial or administrative rules revisions throughout this notice; therefore, section 110(l) of the Act has been complied with.

    In 2006, EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. The LDEQ adopted revisions to NAAQS for particulate matter in LAC 33:III, Chapter 7. This revision will update the Louisiana air quality regulations to include the revised NAAQS for particulate matter. The revision is consistent with the NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10 standards of 40 CFR 50. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006), and http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html (URL dated October 5, 2015). We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Currently, the LAC 33:III Chapter 13 Abrasive Blasting is not in the EPA-approved SIP. The 2007 general revisions submittal establishes the standards of performance for abrasive blasting operations and includes provisions concerning requirement to control emissions through either enclosure or establishment of best management practices, maintenance of control equipment, recordkeeping requirements, and prohibited materials and methods that cannot be used in abrasive blasting activities requirements. The LDEQ later in its 2008-2010 miscellaneous rules submittal revised this rule by incorporating an updated version of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method in § 1327 for taking samples when determining the weight percent of fines in abrasive materials. Incorporating a specific ASTM Test Method in § 1327 will provide for consistency in the rule and facilitate compliance determinations. Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 13 will result in enhancing the SIP, and reducing particulate matter emissions from abrasive blasting operations. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 1 General Provisions concern § 111 Definitions. The revisions defines the term SPOC or the Single Point of Contact. The revision is ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose its approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 9 General Regulations on Control of Emissions and Emission Standards concern § 918 Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting and § 919 Emission Inventory which require data for emission reports be collected annually, include air pollutants that a NAAQS has been issued for, and the owner or operator submit reports to the Office Environmental Assessment. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 11 Control of Emissions of Smoke concern reporting of opacity exceedances and exemptions. The revisions now require that reports be submitted to the SPOC instead of the Office of Environmental Compliance, Emergency and Radiological Services Division. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 14 Conformity concern § 1410 Criteria for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions and § 1434 Consultation that designate the secretary of Department of Environmental Quality or a designee and assistant secretary of the Office of Planning and Programming or a designee participate in the conformity consultation process. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 21 Control of Emission of Organic Compounds concern §§ 2103, 2108, 2113, 2116, 2122, 2123, 2132, 2153, and 2159. See Part B of the TSD for more information. The revisions throughout this Chapter are ministerial and administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Revision to LAC 33:III Chapter 22 Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides concerns § 2201 removing the term “Air Permits Division.” This revision is ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose its approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 23 Control of Emissions for Specific Industries concern §§ 2301 and 2303 deleting the terms “Air Quality Assessment Division;” and § 2307 deleting “the Office of Environmental Compliance, Emergency and Radiological Services Division” when submitting the required reports and plans. The revision are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 25, Subchapter B—Biomedical Waste Incineration Rules concern § 2511 Standards of Performance for Biomedical Waste; Subchapter C-Refuse Incinerators § 2521 Refuse Incinerators; and Subchapter D-Crematories § 2531 Standards of Performance for Crematories. On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977) EPA approved the existing provisions of LAC 33:III Chapter 25 into the SIP. The revisions reflect the updated names of offices or departmental organizations that reports or test results should be submitted to for review and approval. The revisions are ministerial or administrative in nature. We propose their approval into the SIP.

    Certain provisions of the Louisiana SIP are affected by EPA's June 12, 2015 National SIP Call (80 FR 33967). Those provisions are identified as §§ 1107(A), 1507(A)(1), 1507(B)(1), 2153(B)(1)(i), 2201(C)(8), 2307(C)(1), and 2307(C)(2). Finally, our proposed approval of amendments to LAC 33:III, Chapters 11, 21, 22, and 23 should not, in any way, be construed as explicitly or implicitly voiding or minimizing any concerns or inadequacies identified in EPA's National SIP Call of June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33967) with respect to the above referenced provisions. We continue to expect that issues raised within the context of the EPA's National SIP Call to be addressed in a timely fashion. See section 110(k)(5) of the Act.

    Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve rule revisions to LAC 33:III, Chapter 1, § 111; Chapter 7, §§ 701, 703, and 711; Chapter 9, §§ 918, and 919; Chapter 13, §§ 1323, 1325, 1327, 1329, 1331, and 1333; Chapter 14, §§ 1410, and 1434; Chapter 21, §§ 2103, 2108, 2113, 2116, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2132, 2153, and 2159; Chapter 22, § 2201; Chapter 23, §§ 2301, 2302, and 2307; and Chapter 25, §§ 2511, 2521, and 2531.

    We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with sections 110, and 129 of the Act.

    Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    Statutory and Executive Order 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. If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

    • 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;

    • 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); and

    • 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 proposed 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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28277 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456; FRL-9936-56-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions Statements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Tennessee state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation on behalf of the Knox County Department of Air Quality Management (County Department), on March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, that require certain sources in Knox County, Tennessee, to report actual emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen to the County Department annually. These changes amend the Knox County Air Quality Management Regulations in the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP to reflect the State of Tennessee's SIP-approved emissions statement requirements for Knox County. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456”, Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

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

    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:

    Tiereny Bell, 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. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule and incorporated by reference herein. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all adverse comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: October 20, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28106 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0552; FRL-9936-70-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from fan-driven natural gas-fired central furnaces for residences and businesses. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0552, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

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

    Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for further instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. For the full EPA public comment policy and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 942 3073, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency/agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted SJVUAPCD 4905 Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces 01/22/15 04/07/15 SCAQMD 1111 Reduction of NOX Emissions From Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnaces 09/05/14 04/07/15

    On April 30, 2015, the EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD 4905 and SCAQMD 1111 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved a previous version of Rule 4905 into the SIP on May 30, 2007 in 72 FR 29886 and a previous version of Rule 1111 August 4, 2010 in 75 FR 46845.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control NOX emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4905 and SCAQMD Rule 1111 are point-of-sale rules for fan-driven natural gas-fired furnaces. The most recent revisions to Rule 4905 reduced the emission limits for various furnace types to the same limits set in the SIP-approved version of Rule 1111. The most recent revisions to Rule 1111 briefly extended the compliance deadline for one type of furnace. The revisions to both Rule 4905 and Rule 1111 also added a fee option for manufacturers of furnaces who produce and sell furnaces not meeting the new limits within the first three years of compliance. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    The SIP must implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable, in ozone nonattainment areas classified Moderate and above (see CAA section 172(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.912(d) and 51.1112(c)). In addition, the SIP must require RACT for all major sources of NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f); 40 CFR 51.912(a) and 51.1112(a)(1)). SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD both regulate ozone nonattainment areas classified as Extreme for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour standards (40 CFR 81.305). SJVUAPCD Rule 4905 and SCAQMD Rule 1111 regulate area sources that are too small to exceed the major source threshold of 10 tons per year for Extreme ozone nonattainment areas and are therefore not subject to major source ozone RACT requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f). Nonetheless, the SIP must implement all RACM/RACT for NOX necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements (see CAA section 172(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.912(d) and 51.1112(c)). A RACM/RACT evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan.

    The SIP must also implement RACM, including RACT, as expeditiously as possible in PM2.5 nonattainment areas classified as Moderate (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD both regulate PM2.5 nonattainment areas classified as Moderate for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (40 CFR 81.305). A RACM/RACT evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan.

    SIP rules must implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in PM2.5 nonattainment areas classified as Serious or above (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). SJVUAPCD regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as Serious for the 1997 PM2.5 standard (40 CFR 81.305). A BACM/BACT evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan.

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements include the following:

    1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

    2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

    3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

    4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

    5. “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA, January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-001).

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, stringency and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because we believe they fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until December 7, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. While we are proposing to fully approve the rules, the TSDs discuss why fee provisions in these rules limit the creditable emission reductions from these rules in some CAA planning actions.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD rules as described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations (CAA section 110(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 Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

    • 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28278 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673; FRL-9936-69-Region 9] Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark County AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions. We are proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

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

    Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for further instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. For the full EPA public comment policy and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3073, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. Which rules has the county rescinded? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission? B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria? C. What are the deficiencies? D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules E. Proposed Action and Public Comment III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. Which rules has the county rescinded?

    On November 20, 2014, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that includes amendments to two local rules adopted by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (“Clark County”) and rescissions of four local Clark County rules.1 In this action, we are proposing action on the rescissions. The EPA will take action on the rule amendments in a separate rulemaking.

    1 Under state law, NDEP is the Governor's designee for maintaining the Nevada SIP. NDEP is also the agency responsible for air quality planning and permitting within the entire state except for Clark County and Washoe County. In Clark County, air quality planning and permitting jurisdiction, with certain exceptions, lies with the Clark County Board of County Commissioners, which acts through the county's Department of Air Quality (DAQ).

    Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes to approve, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the EPA's date and citation of approval.

    Table 1—Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Approval Rule section of the Clark County Air
  • Quality Regulations
  • (CCAQR)
  • Title Local effective date SIP approval date FR Citation
    Section 29 Sulfur Contents of Fuel Oil December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981 46 FR 43141. Section 30, subsections 30.1-30.7 (excluding subsection 30.4) Incinerators December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981 46 FR 43141. Section 30, subsection 30.4 [exemptions for certain types of incinerators] September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 47 FR 26386. Section 30, subsection 30.8 [related to maximum allowable emission rates] September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 47 FR 26386.

    Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes disapprove, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the EPA's date and citation of approval.

    Table 2—Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Disapproval Rule section of the
  • (CCAQR)
  • Title Local effective date SIP approval date FR citation
    Section 52, subsections 52.1-52.10 (excluding subsections 52.4.2.3 and 52.7.2) Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks December 28, 1978 April 14, 1981 46 FR 21758. Section 52, subsections 52.4.2.3 and 52.7.2 [related to vapor recovery and sales information] September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 47 FR 26386. Section 60 (excluding subsections 60.4.2-60.4.3) Evaporation and Leakage June 28, 1979 April 14, 1981 46 FR 21758. Section 60, subsection 60.4.2 [General prohibition on the use of cutback asphalt] September 3, 1981 March 20, 1984 49 FR 10259. Section 60, subsection 60.4.3 [Exceptions to subsection 60.4.2] September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 47 FR 26386.

    On May 20, 2015, the submittal for Clark County was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    This rule rescissions include four sections of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP, Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. Previously, NDEP submitted, and the EPA approved into the SIP, various subsections of these rules separately. As a result, the SIP elements concerning each of these Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) rules consist of several subsections as identified in Tables 1 and 2.2 These sections were repealed locally on April 5, 2011.3

    2 Unless otherwise specified, all references to CCAQR Sections in this document are to those sections in their entirety.

    3 The SIP approved versions of CCAQR sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 rules were all approved into the SIP prior to 1985. The County has since updated the locally effective rules several times. Clark County's most recently adopted local rules differed substantially from the SIP-approved versions. The most recently adopted local versions were the subject of the county's local repeal action. However, we understand that the intent of the county and NDEP in submitting the repeal of these later-adopted (not SIP-approved) versions of the rules is to remove the SIP-approved versions of the rules from the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.

    C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?

    Clark County adopted a number of rules to meet CAA national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment requirements in the late 1970s and 1980s, and submitted many of these for incorporation into the Nevada SIP. The rules that were approved into the SIP included CCAQR Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60.

    Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 establish limits and control measures to reduce emissions of SOX, PM, and VOCs from the combustion of fuels (Section 29), incinerators (Section 30), gasoline dispensing facilities (Section 52) and other processes and industries that use solvents, degreasing, surface coating, and cutback asphalt (Section 60).

    Clark County began a process to revise the CCAQR in May 2005. In part, Clark County was concerned with regulatory conflict resulting from the delegation of authority or the local incorporation by reference of federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for many source categories covered under existing local rules. As a result, Clark County repealed Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 on April 5, 2011.

    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) associated with today's proposal has more information about these rules.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?

    Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990.

    Stringency: Generally, rules must be protective of the NAAQS, and must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in nonattainment areas for ozone and Reasonably Available Control Methods (RACM), including RACT, for PM nonattainment areas. Clark County is currently designated as a maintenance area for the revoked 1997 ozone standard, and as attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. (40 CFR 81.329). Clark County regulates a PM10 maintenance area for the 1987 standard and is currently designated as attainment for the 2010 SO2 standard. (40 CFR 81.329). Therefore, these rules are not currently subject to CAA RACT, RACM, or analogous stringency standards.

    Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section 110(l). We note that, despite its current ozone NAAQS attainment designations, air quality monitoring data from 2012-2014 suggest that ozone concentrations within Clark County no longer meet the 2008 ozone standard, so SIP changes that would allow an increase in ozone precursor emissions (such VOC emissions) may not be protective of the NAAQS.

    Section 29 limited the sulfur content of fuel oils in order to reduce SOX emissions, a precursor for PM. Section 30 regulated the operation of incinerators, and limited the emissions of PM. Section 52 regulated the operation of gasoline dispensing facilities, and limited the emissions of VOCs. Section 60 regulated the use, storage, and disposal of solvents in large scale degreasing and coating operations, and for cutback asphalt. Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l) requirements, Clark County must demonstrate that the rescission of Sections 29, 30, 52 and 60 would not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any rule adopted before November 15, 1990 in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant.

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate these requirements include the following:

    1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

    2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

    3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

    4. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

    B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    We have concluded that CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 are appropriate for rescission. Clark County is currently designated as attainment or maintenance for each of the NAAQS. As a result, Clark County rules are not required to meet RACT or analogous standards, and are subject to the general savings clause in CAA section 193. Clark County also documented that these two rescissions should not increase emissions of ozone precursors, and that any additional emissions would not interfere with the maintenance of applicable NAAQS for SO2 and PM. This satisfies the requirements on plan revisions.

    However, CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 are not appropriate for rescission as summarized below and described in more detail in our TSD.

    C. What are the deficiencies?

    Clark County has not demonstrated that rescinding CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 would satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Specifically, we propose to disapprove the rescissions of sections 52 and 60 based on the following concerns:

    1. The rescission of Section 52 from the SIP would allow an increase in VOC emissions, as any other applicable Federal or State rules or standards would not apply to the same breadth of sources as the SIP-approved rule. This would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    2. The rescission of Section 60 would allow an increase in VOC emissions. Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of cutback asphalt in summer months, with certain exceptions, which is not prohibited by any other Federal or State rules that would apply absent subsection 60.4. Removing this prohibition would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules

    While Clark County is no longer enforcing these rules, Clark County Sections 52 and 60 would remain federally enforceable as part of the applicable SIP if the EPA were to finalize today's proposed disapproval of the rescissions of these two rules.

    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval of the Clark County rule rescissions submitted by NDEP on November 20, 2014. We are proposing to approve the rescissions of CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 and to disapprove the rescissions of Sections 52 and 60. Final approval of the rescissions of Clark County Sections 29 and 30 would remove the rules from the Nevada SIP. Final disapproval of the rescissions of Clark County Sections 52 and 60 would retain both rules in the Nevada SIP.

    Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be imposed should the EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the SIP submittal that we are partially disapproving is not a required SIP submittal. Similarly, EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA section 110(c)(1) because the partial disapproval of the SIP revision retains existing SIP rules and does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the area that a FIP must correct.

    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP approval and disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that the EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.” The EPA has determined that the proposed approval and disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve and disapprove the removal of pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove would not 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, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP revision under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP.

    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order (E.O). 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 19, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28276 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 268, 270, 273, and 279 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121; FRL-9936-51-OSWER] RIN 2050-AG70 Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing an extension to the comment period for the proposed rule on improvements to the generator regulations published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2015. EPA is proposing to revise the hazardous waste generator regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to improve compliance and thereby enhance protection of human health and the environment. Specifically, EPA proposes to revise certain components of the hazardous waste generator regulatory program; address gaps in the regulations; provide greater flexibility for hazardous waste generators to manage their hazardous waste in a cost-effective and protective manner; reorganize the hazardous waste regulations to make them more user-friendly and thus improve their usability by the regulated community; and make technical corrections and conforming changes to address inadvertent errors, remove obsolete references to programs that no longer exist, and improve the readability of the regulations. The comment period is being extended to December 24, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule published September 25, 2015 (80 FR 57918) must be received on or before December 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Jim O'Leary, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8827, ([email protected]) or Kathy Lett, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, at (703) 605-0761 ([email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register for 30 days. In that Federal Register notice, EPA proposed revising and reorganizing the regulations for generators of hazardous waste. The purpose of these proposed revisions is to make the rules easier to understand, facilitate better compliance, provide greater flexibility in how hazardous waste is managed, and improve environmental protection by closing important gaps in the regulations. Several requests were received from potential commenters to extend the comment period to allow greater time to comment. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on November 24, 2015, to December 24, 2015. Please note that late comments on this rule making may not be considered.

    To submit comments or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES. If you have questions, consult the individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 22, 2015. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28099 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 261, 262, 266, 268, and 273 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0932; FRL-9936-49-OSWER] RIN 2050-AG39 Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing an extension to the comment period for the proposed rule on the management and disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2015. EPA is proposing new hazardous waste pharmaceutical regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to improve compliance and thereby enhance protection of human health and the environment. Specifically, EPA proposed to revise the regulations to improve the management and disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals and tailor them to address the specific issues that hospitals, pharmacies and other healthcare-related facilities face. The revisions are also intended to clarify the regulation of the reverse distribution mechanism used by healthcare facilities for the management of unused and/or expired pharmaceuticals. The comment period is being extended to December 24, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule published September 25, 2015 (80 FR 58014) must be received on or before December 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0932, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Kristin Fitzgerald, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8286; email address: [email protected] or Joshua Smeraldi, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-0441; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register for 30 days. In that Federal Register notice, EPA proposed new regulations for the management of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to improve the management and disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals and tailor them to address the specific issues that hospitals, pharmacies and other healthcare-related facilities face. The revisions are also intended to clarify the regulation of the reverse distribution mechanism used by healthcare facilities for the management of unused and/or expired pharmaceuticals. Several requests were received from potential commenters to extend the comment period to allow greater time to comment. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on November 24, 2015, to December 24, 2015. Please note that late comments on this rule making may not be considered.

    To submit comments or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES. If you have questions, consult the individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 22, 2015. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28100 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 214 Thursday, November 5, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Microarray Equipment & Supplies, LLC of Cupertino, California, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/724,736, “OLIGONUCLEOTIDE PROBES FOR SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF NOROVIRUSES AND OTHER PATHOGENS”, filed on May 28, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Microarray Equipment & Supplies, LLC of Cupertino, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28239 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Seek Renewal of an Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3) and the office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intent to seek reinstatement of the ARS Animal Health National Program Assessment Survey, renamed as the Agricultural Research Service National Program Assessment Survey and expanded so that it can be used by other ARS National Programs. This voluntary information collection will give the beneficiaries of ARS research the opportunity to provide input on the impact of the research conducted by ARS in the last National Program cycle for each of the respective National Programs. This input will be used for planning the research agenda for the next 5-year program cycle.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 4, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Dr. Robert C. MacDonald, Agricultural Project Coordinator, Agricultural Research Service, Office of National Programs, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, GWCC, Room 4-2142, Beltsville, Maryland, 20705. Submit electronic comments to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Robert C. MacDonald at (301) 504-1184.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: ARS Animal Health National Program Assessment Evaluation Form.

    OMB Number: 0518-0042.

    Expiration Date: April 30, 2016.

    Type of Request: Approval to seek reinstatement of the ARS Animal Health National Program Assessment Survey, renamed as the Agricultural Research Service National Program Assessment Survey and expanded so that it can be used by other ARS National Programs. This voluntary information collection will give the beneficiaries of ARS research the opportunity to provide input on the impact of the research conducted by ARS in the last National Program cycle for each of the respective National Programs. This survey seeks input from the beneficiaries of research conducted by ARS for program planning and ensures alignment of the ARS National Programs with the needs of our customers, partners, and stakeholders.

    Abstract: ARS research covers the span of nutrition, food safety and quality, animal and plant production and protection, and natural resources and sustainable agricultural systems. It is organized into seventeen National Programs addressing specific areas of this research. These

    National Programs serve to bring coordination, communication, and empowerment to approximately 750 research projects carried out by ARS and focus on the relevance, impact, and quality of ARS research. The requested voluntary electronic evaluation survey will give the beneficiaries of ARS research the opportunity to provide input on the impact of several ARS National Programs. For the purpose of this National Program Assessment, impact is defined as

    research that has influenced or will significantly influence the area covered by the National Program; has created or will create information, best practices, and/or economic opportunities for the National Program's customers, partners, and stakeholders; or has enabled or will enable action and regulatory agencies to formulate policies and regulations to support American agriculture. The report and evaluation form will be available online through a dedicated URL. The input provided through the completion of the evaluation form will be shared with customers, partners, and stakeholders as part of each National Program's assessment process.

    The ARS has 17 National Programs, each of which are assessed every 5 years on a rotating basis as part of ARS' National Program planning cycle to ensure the relevance, quality, and impact of ARS research. The assessment serves as both a retrospective evaluation and as the foundation for future priority setting for the Agency. Although the exact process for an assessment varies by the nature of the National Program, all include the following four stages:

    • Conducting an in-house program assessment and documenting research accomplishments and/or progress for presentation to external reviewers;

    • Conducting an external review of accomplishments and/or progress, based on the preceding documentation, focused on the research's relevance, quality, and impact;

    • Recording the results of the review; and

    • Informing ARS leadership of evaluation results.

    All of the methodologies for an assessment include developing a written report of accomplishments from research conducted during the previous 5 years. One assessment method involves sending the accomplishment report to a broad group of informed stakeholders for their reference and asking them to respond by completing an online survey about the impact of the National Program. This survey information is then compiled into a report that can be shared with stakeholders and ARS Administrators. The survey information can also be used for the next step of the National Program Planning cycle, which is planning for the following 5 years.

    This survey has previously been used by only one of ARS' National Programs but interest in its use has expanded. Three National Programs will be using this survey within the 3-year information collection period and possibly a fourth, which has been included in the burden hour estimate. Because ARS National Program planning cycle is 5 years in length and is staggered among National Programs, only one or two National Programs will be using the survey in any given year. The survey consists of a set of questions used in common by several or all of the National Programs and a few questions specific to a given National Program.

    Estimate of Burden: Completing the electronic evaluation form is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 800.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 200 hours.

    Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the input provided by a wide array of customers, and; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 26, 2015. Simon Y. Liu, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28238 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (WIC ITFPS-2) Age 5 Extension Study AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of the currently approved WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices 2 Study (ITFPS-2). The revision is to amend the 36-month data collection instrument and extend the data collection on the cohort of infants by two years, to their 5th birthdays and therefore through the entire period of their WIC eligibility. The data will be used to estimate the type and prevalence of various feeding practices in the WIC population and assess whether the new WIC food packages (instituted in 2009) have influenced feeding practices. This study will also examine the circumstances and influences that shape caregivers' feeding decisions for their children, and will describe the impact of these decisions throughout early childhood.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden on the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological methods of data collection.

    Written comments may be sent to: Allison Magness, Ph.D., R.D., Social Science Research Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Allison Magness at 703-305-2576 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project, contact Allison Magness, Ph.D., R.D., Social Science Research Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Allison Magness at 703-305-2576 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (ITFPS-2) Age 5 Extension.

    Form Number: N/A.

    OMB Number: 0584-0580.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 05/31/2018.

    Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) WIC ITFPS-2 will provide information on the feeding practices of infants from the time of birth up to 3 years of age. The proposed revision will amend the 36-month data collection instrument and extend the longitudinal data collection of the current cohort of infants up to 5 years of age, through the end of their WIC eligibility. This proposed extension is needed to understand the influence of environmental characteristics, WIC, and children's nutrient intake, meal and snack patterns, and feeding practices on children's subsequent nutrition, health, weight, and growth. The results will assist in the development of appropriate and effective prevention strategies to improve the health of young children. With over 50 percent of the nation's infants enrolled in WIC, it is hoped that prevention strategies implemented in WIC will have a substantial impact on the growth and health of U.S. infants and children.

    The study activities subject to this notice include: Informing State WIC offices and local WIC sites that the study has been extended and their role in the extension study; collecting contact information on 2,444 caregivers in the study during the 36-month telephone interview; administering four additional telephone interviews to up to 3,184 caregivers of children enrolled in the study when their child is 42-, 48-, 54-, and 60-months old; and obtaining their child's height and weight measurements at 48- and 60-months from WIC administrative records, health care provider records, or direct measurements at WIC sites.

    The State WIC office and local WIC site staff will be invited to participate in a webinar that will highlight key study findings to date (from reports cleared by FNS) and describe the study extension to age 5. States and sites will participate in conference calls to discuss the follow-up activities. Each study participant will receive a letter about the study extension when the child is 33 months of age and will be asked to provide updated contact information to ensure ongoing participation, at the time of the 36-month interview. Prior to being contacted for each subsequent telephone interview, the caregiver for each child in the cohort will be mailed an advance letter that includes a toll-free number to call for questions or to complete the interview. Participants will also be re-contacted between interviews throughout this study. Participants will receive periodic mailings, calls, emails, and text messages asking them to provide updated contact information and reminding them of upcoming interviews and height and weight (H/W) measurements. WIC site staff will weigh and measure study children at ages 48- and 60-months. Additional H/W measures will come from provider records, WIC State agency administrative records, and home health agency measurements. WIC site staff will also provide updated contact information when requested.

    Affected Public: Approximately 3,885 respondents will be contacted to participate in this data collection. Individuals/Households (3,360; 2,178 respondents and 1,183 non-respondents); State, Local, or Tribal government (107 respondents and 0 non-respondents); and Business-for-profit/not-for-profit (418; 334 respondents and 84 non-respondents). There are approximately 1,266 non-respondents who will be contacted but choose not to participate. The total annual responses for this collection are (100,310 = 81,958 respondents and 18,352 non-respondents). The total burden estimate for this collection is (11,438.62 = 10,691.25 respondents and 747.37 non-respondents).

    The burden for all affected public, respondents and non-respondents is broken down in the table below.

    Type of Respondents: Caregivers of children in cohort; State agency data managers and WIC site staff; and health care providers.

    Estimated Total Annual Number of Respondents: 3,885.

    Estimated Annual Frequency of Response: 25.81919.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 100,310 total responses.

    Estimated of Time per Respondent: 0.1140364.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,439.

    The estimated burden for each type of respondent is given in the table below.

    EN05NO15.012 EN05NO15.013 Dated: October 30, 2015. Yvette S. Jackson, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28273 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 2, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if they are received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Federal-State Special Supplemental Nutrition Program Agreement.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0332.

    Summary Of Collection: The Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) are carried out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) of 1966, as amended, and the SFMNP under 7 U.S.C. 3007. The Federal-State Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs Agreement (FNS-339) is the annual contract between USDA and each State agency seeking to operate one or more of the following programs: (1) WIC, (2) FMNP, and (3) SFMNP. A signed contract is required before the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) can release Program funds.

    Need and Use of the Information: The agreement requires the signatures of the Chief State agency official and includes a certification/assurance regarding drug free work place, a certification regarding lobbying and a disclosure of lobbying activities. If the information is not collected Federal funds cannot be provided to the State agency without a signed agreement.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 188.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 31.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28270 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests; Gunnison County; Colorado; Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) has submitted a proposal to the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests (NF) to pursue approval of select projects from its 2013 Master Development Plan (MDP). The GMUG has accepted this proposal and is initiating the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the potential environmental effects of implementing the projects. The Proposed Action includes: A Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary adjustment to include skiable terrain in the Teo Drainage area, the addition of lift-served terrain in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage area, installation of additional snowmaking infrastructure, realignment of the existing North Face lift, and supplemental mountain biking trails.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by December 7, 2015. Two public open houses regarding this proposal will be held: One on November 18, 2015 from 5-8 p.m.; and one on November 19, 2015 from 5-8 p.m. (See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further information on the open houses). The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review in November 2016, and the final environmental impact statement is expected June 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to: Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor, c/o Aaron Drendel, Recreation Staff Officer, Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, 216 N. Colorado St., Gunnison, CO 81230; FAX (970) 642-4425 or by email to: [email protected] (please include “CBMR EIS Projects” in the subject line).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information related to the proposed project can be obtained from: Aaron Drendel, Recreation Staff Officer, Gunnison Ranger District. Mr. Drendel can be reached by phone at (970) 641-0471 or by email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action

    The Forest Service is responding to an application submitted under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 and Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 (SAROEA) by CBMR to implement projects from their accepted MDP. In the MDP, CBMR identified a deficiency in developed intermediate/advanced terrain compared with CBMR's skier and rider market. It also noted a slight deficit of developed expert terrain. The MDP also identifies a need to enhance summer recreation activities (consistent with the SAREOEA) in order to meet increasing guest expectations.

    The GMUG, through acceptance of CBMR's Master Development Plan, has identified a need to:

    • Meet increased public demand for developed intermediate, advanced, and expert terrain skiing terrain by developing the main mountain;

    • Develop the total amount of developed and undeveloped terrain and ski pods, with an emphasis on intermediate and advanced skiers, in order to increase the skiing opportunities for the guests and thereby increase their length of stay;

    • Provide an expanded offering of additional recreational activities for year-round utilization of existing facilities, consistent with summer use impact zones in the MDP;

    • Continue to increase the quality of the facilities to meet the ever-increasing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets; and

    • Improve skier circulation and opportunities by realigning the North Face Lift and adding snowmaking infrastructure.

    Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action includes the following six elements:

    • SUP boundary adjustment and amendment to the 1991 GMUG National Forests' Amended Land and Resource Management Plan;

    • Construction of new intermediate and advanced ski trails and glades in Teo Park and Teo Drainage;

    • Construction of two new lifts (Teo Drainage, and Teo Park), and realignment of the existing North Face lift;

    • New snowmaking infrastructure on the following existing trails: Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel's, and Shep's Chute;

    • Construction of approximately 2,300 feet of new road and 450 feet of realigned road for construction and maintenance access; and

    • Construction of approximately 15 miles of multi-use and mountain biking trails.

    A full description of each element can be found at: www.crestedbutte-eis.com.

    Responsible Official

    The Responsible Official is Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor for the GMUG.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to decide the following:

    • Whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for additional ski area improvements and associated activities.

    • Whether to prescribe conditions needed for the protection of the environment on NFS lands.

    • Whether or not to approve a site-specific Forest Plan Amendment changing the management area boundaries for the expansion.

    Permits or Licenses Required

    Forest Service Special Use Permit (SUP)

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed projects. Two public open houses regarding this proposal will be held: one at the Fred R. Field Western Heritage Center located at 275 S. Spruce Street, Gunnison, CO 81230 on November 18, 2015 from 5-8 p.m.; and one at the Ballrooms at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, 620 Gothic Road, Crested Butte, CO 81225 on November 19, 2015 from 5-8 p.m. Representatives from the GMUG and CBMR will be present to answer questions and provide additional information on this project.

    To be most helpful, comments should be specific to the project area and should identify resources or effects that should be considered by the Forest Service. Submitting timely, specific written comments during this scoping period or any other official comment period establishes standing for filing objections under 36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B. Additional information and maps of this proposal can be found at: www.crestedbutte-eis.com.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

    Dated: October 26, 2015. Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27718 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Yavapai Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Yavapai Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Prescott, Arizona. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/prescott/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held December 1, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Prescott Fire Center, 2400 Melville Drive, Prescott, Arizona.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Prescott National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2971 Willow Creek Road, Bldg. 4, Prescott, Arizona. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Debbie Maneely, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 928-443-8130 or via email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. Update RAC on Outreach Efforts For Vacant Positions;

    2. Review Round 5 Projects; and

    3. Rank and Select Round 5 Projects.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by December 1, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Debbie Maneely, RAC Coordinator, 344 South Cortez, Prescott, Arizona 86301; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 928-443-8208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: October 28, 2015. Teresa A. Chase, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28201 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service [Docket No. NRCS-2015-0014] Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to Section I of the Illinois Field Office Technical Guide for Public Review and Comment AGENCY:

    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NRCS is proposing to revise Section I of the Illinois Field Office Technical Guide to include “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” which will replace the existing “Wetland Mapping Conventions NRCS Illinois” (commonly referred as State Wetland Mapping Conventions).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This notice is effective November 5, 2015. “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” is in final draft, subject to revision and will be utilized immediately in order to better service requests for wetland determinations for compliance with the Food Security Act of 1985 (as amended) in a timely manner.

    Comment Date: Submit comments on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be submitted, identified by Docket Number NRCS-2015-0014, using any of the following methods:

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

    Mail or hand-delivery: Submit state specific comments to the Illinois NRCS State Office, located at 2118 West Park Court, Champaign, Illinois 61821.

    • NRCS will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. In general, personal information provided with comments will be posted. If your comment includes your address, phone number, email, or other personal identifying information, your comments, including personal information, may be available to the public. You may ask in your comment that your personal identifying information be withheld from public view, but this cannot be guaranteed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric A. Gerth, Acting State Conservationist. Phone: 217-353-6600

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” will be used as part of the technical documents and procedures to conduct wetland determinations on agricultural land as required by 16 U.S.C. 3822. NRCS is required by 16 U.S.C. 3862 to make available for public review and comment all proposed revisions to standards and procedures used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law.

    All comments will be considered. If no comments are received, “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” will be considered final.

    Electronic copies of the proposed “Guidance for Illinois Food Security Act Wetland Determinations Including Offsite Methods” are available through http://www.regulations.gov by accessing Docket No. NRCS-2015-0014. Alternatively, copies can be downloaded or printed from the Illinois NRCS Web site located at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/il/home/. Requests for paper versions or inquiries may be directed to the Illinois State Conservationist at the contact point shown above.

    Signed this 28th day of October, 2015, in Champaign, Illinois. Eric A. Gerth, Acting State Conservationist.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28183 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ramon Toledo, US Census Bureau, Room 7H590T, Washington, DC 20233-8500; phone: (301) 763-5773 or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2017 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS) under contract for the City of New York. The primary purpose of the survey is to measure the rental vacancy rate, which is the primary factor in determining the continuation of rent control regulations. Other survey information is used by city and state agencies for planning purposes and by the private sector for business decisions. New York is required by city law to have such a survey conducted every three years.

    Information to be collected includes: age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, and relationship of all household members; employment status, education level, and income for persons aged 15 and above. Owner/renter status (tenure) is asked for all occupied units. Utility costs, monthly rent, availability of kitchen and bathroom facilities, maintenance deficiencies, neighborhood suitability, and other specific questions about each unit such as number of rooms and bedrooms are also asked. The survey also poses a number of questions relating to handicapped accessibility. For vacant units, a shorter series of similar questions is asked. Finally, all vacant units and approximately five percent of occupied units will be reinterviewed for quality assurance purposes.

    The Census Bureau compiles the data in tabular format based on specifications of the survey sponsor, as well as non-identifiable microdata. Both types of data are also made available to the general public through the Census Internet site. Note, however, that the sponsor, like the general public, does not receive any information that identifies any sample respondent or household.

    II. Method of Collection

    We will attempt to collect all information via a personal interview using a questionnaire that is available in English and Spanish. However, upon the respondent's request, a telephone interview may be conducted.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0757.

    Form Numbers: H-100, H-108.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: primarily households and some rental offices/realtors (for vacancies).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 17,000 occupied units, 1,500 vacant units, 2,400 reinterviews.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes—occupied, 10 minutes—vacant, 10 minutes—reinterview.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,200.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C.—Section 8b and Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act, Laws of New York (Chapters 8603 and 657).

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28150 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 150324295-5963-03] Privacy Act System of Records, New System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of new Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System.”

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) publishes this notice to announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled: COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System.

    DATES:

    The system of records becomes effective on November 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to: Michael J. Toland, Departmental Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Toland, Department Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 8, 2015, and June 29, 2015, the Department published and requested comments on a proposed new Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled: COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System. The system serves to provide electronic physical access control, intrusion detection and video management solutions to ensure the safety and security of DOC assets to include people, facilities, information and property. The system controls access to only those authorized as well as aids in the monitoring, assessment and response to security and emergency related incidents. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed new system as final effective November 5, 2015.

    Public Comments and Responses

    Interested parties were afforded the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through the submission of written comments on the proposed new systems of records notice (SORN). The Department received five public submissions in response to the proposed SORN. Due consideration was given to each comment received and the Department's responses to those comments are noted below.

    One commenter recommended adding language under the Safeguards section to “address how the records/system is planned to address insider threats.” The Department disagrees with this commenter's suggestion. The addition of such language would potentially impact the effectiveness of the Department's Insider Threat Program.

    Several commenters urged the Department to withdraw this proposed system of records and to “refrain from implementing any intrusive system that needlessly monitors the movements of its employees.” In support of their suggestion, two commenters said that “The Department has not explained the need for tracking employees' every physical movement when on-site, which, in the proposed system of records, would go so far as to include monitoring the buttons employees strike on their work station keyboards.” Further, those commenters raised concerns about employee morale and the security of the system. In addition, several commenters submitted the view that this SORN does not adequately describe provisions or processes to insure the safety and integrity of employees' sensitive personally identifiable information.

    The Department disagrees with these comments. The system of records covered by this SORN are subject to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), which requires that controls be put in place to protect IT systems and the information contained within. Additionally, Privacy Impact Assessments have been conducted on these systems to further define procedures for protecting Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and address the impact on employees' privacy. Further, the SAFEGUARDS section of this notice describes methods for protecting information maintained in this system. For example, this section mentions that “electronic records are password-protected or PKI-protected, consistent with the requirements of [FISMA] (Pub. L. 107-296), and associated OMB policies, standards and guidance from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and the General Services Administration, all records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards.” It should be noted that safeguards should be described in general terms and to the extent they would not compromise system security, which serves as an added layer of protection for employees' data.

    One commenter suggested that it was unclear whether the Department is attempting to either (1) create a new database with all the information set forth in the SORN, or (2) come into compliance with statutes and regulations concerning employee data that the Department already has in an existing system. The Department is issuing this new SORN to ensure that the Department is in compliance with the Privacy Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11); and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix I, Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals for all categories of information covered by DEPT-25. This SORN covers some similar categories of information as a government-wide SORN, GOVT-7, “Personal Identity Verification Identity Management System (PIV IDMS).” After a review, the Department decided to implement a more specific SORN with respect to this system of records.

    The same commenter further suggested that if the SORN is bringing the Department into compliance, then certain personnel actions involving employee data collected prior to publication of the SORN are called into question. This comment goes beyond the scope of the content and adequacy of this SORN.

    Another commenter proposed that implementation of the SORN will result in a significant staffing increase to administer and monitor the program. The Department disagrees. Adequate resources are available within the Department's Office of Security and Office of the Chief Information Officer to administer and monitor the program as it relates to Access Control and Identity Management.

    One commenter suggested that employees will have difficulty determining what information the Department is maintaining on them and how to obtain the information kept. The Department disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. This notice has a section, CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM, which enumerates the information collected from individuals. Should an employee need additional clarification on information collected and maintained on him or her in this system of records, the employee can file a Privacy Act request following the procedures outlined in the NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE section of this notice. With regard to obtaining information kept, another section, RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES, provides instructions on how an individual can request access to records on himself or herself. It should be noted that under the SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE ACT section, all information and material in the record which meets the criteria of the subsections listed under parts of General Exemptions and Specific Exceptions of the Privacy Act are exempted from the notice, access, and contest requirement. Employees should refer to the aforementioned SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE ACT section of this notice for additional information about the requirements for exemptions.

    Another commenter asked whether an employee will be monitored more closely based on political or religious or other beliefs. There is no authority for an agency to monitor its employees based on their political or religious beliefs. In fact, Section 552a(e)(7) of the Privacy Act, prohibits an agency from maintaining a record of how an individual exercises rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, and there are a number of other statutory and policy protections in place that guard against this type of behavior. Therefore, this commenter's concern is misplaced.

    Other commenters expressed concerns about how the Department would employ the use of key-stroke monitoring. In particular, they wanted to know whether the information would be used for all agency employees, even those not suspected of committing any violations of Federal law or Department policies. One of the commenters stressed that “It is a well-accepted IT Security policy within the Federal workspace (and also the private sector) that key-logging programs are insidious, and are used by cyber-criminals to mine data surreptitiously in order to gain unauthorized access to protected information resources. Their presence in the workplace is forbidden for these reasons.” The Department would like to clarify for these commenters that key-stroke monitoring, which is included in this system of records, would be used under appropriate conditions to evaluate anomalous behavior, including suspected or established violations of Federal law or Department policies.

    One commenter asked if the phrase “agency, entity or persons” referred to in a routine use includes data sharing with private sector companies or “entities.” The Department notes that two routine uses, numbers 12 and 13, found at 80 FR 26356 (May 8, 2015), of the notice contain the phrase “agency, entity or persons.” Routine use number 12 deals with sharing information when a breach occurs, while routine use 13 concerns sharing information “for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law.” In both cases, sharing of information may occur with private sector companies or “entities” that have been contracted to provide the support or services described in the aforementioned routine uses. Information shared is kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish the prescribed tasks. It should be noted that pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 24, Privacy Act clauses are required to be included with any contracts for which a contractor is required to be involved with the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function. Under one such clause, FAR 24.104, the contractor agrees to “comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Act) and the agency rules” when using any system of records on individuals in the performance of duties specified in the work statement. The notice also contains a routine use, number 9, which allows records from this system to “be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records with the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).”

    The same commenter stated, “Further, according to this new system, Commerce could disclose information to Agencies, entities and persons, to prevent, minimize, or remedy `a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of the system.'” This commenter went on to ask whether some interested party in a civil lawsuit could request and gain access to data from this system of records under any of the notice's routine uses. The commenter is referring to routine use number 12, which concerns providing information for breach mitigation and notification. Provision of data from this system of records to an interested party engaged in a civil lawsuit is not part of this routine use.

    One commenter suggested that according to the routine use 2 listed in the Federal Register, 80 FR 26536 (May 8, 2015), “protecting the interest of the Department is an accepted justification for referring relevant records, `as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether [F]ederal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of . . . protecting the interest of the Department.' This seems to give the Department a lot of leeway to protect itself from having to disclose possible breaches, errors, or even somewhat embarrassing information. It also seems to give leeway to selectively identify which employees might be disciplined for wrongdoing or infractions that hurt the Department.” The Department disagrees with this commenter's assertion. The Department has a duty to appropriately safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) in its possession and to prevent its compromise in order to maintain the public's trust. Additionally, the Department, like each Federal agency covered under OMB Memorandum M-07-16, “Safeguarding Against and responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” is required to develop a breach notification policy and plan, and to establish a core management team responsible for responding to the breach of PII. To fulfill its commitment to employees, as well as to satisfy OMB requirements, the Department has developed and fully expects all staff to follow a Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Business Identifiable Information, and Privacy Act (PA) Breach Notification Plan. There are no exceptions to following the plan, as well as reporting breaches. The Department has also established a Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) and the Department of Commerce PII Breach Response Task Force for reporting and managing breaches.

    One commenter asked how the Department would “ensure that the usage of the new system of records will be limited in its scope [.]” For instance, the individual proposed that the new system poses a risk of the data being used for purposes not intended in this notice. This commenter also suggested that “the collection of badge in/badge out data, time in/time out data, login/logout data, keystroke monitoring and logs of internet activity all point to using this dataset to monitor, by hours and minutes, employees' schedules and work patterns. These paradata are not reliable indicators of the time employee's work and they should not be used for disciplinary purposes.” Employees are responsible for performing their duties at acceptable levels and for conducting themselves in a manner consistent with law, regulations, and policies. If an employee would be found to have behaved in a way that violated these standards, the Department will use evidence to prove those failings by the appropriate statutory standard. Most acts of misconduct are proved by evidence other than the data at issue here, but this data may constitute evidence of misconduct under certain circumstances. The Department's usage of badge records will be undertaken in accordance with this SORN, and there are policies in place that ensure evidence of employee misconduct used in disciplinary actions is truthful, reliable, and probative of the misconduct that is charged.

    One commenter proposed that “to ensure security of this system and to protect employees, there should be a system of records of who accesses [the] information [maintained in this system of records], when, for what purposes, and how that information was authorized.” The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, defines conditions under which agencies may disclose information from records retrieved by a person's name or other personal identifier. As a general rule, the Department may not disclose a record about such a person, except upon a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, that individual. However, it is important to note that to carry out its statutory responsibilities the Department at times may need to disclose information in Privacy Act records for purposes other than those listed in the Act. With this in mind, under certain specific conditions, the Privacy Act authorizes disclosure of information in a record, whether or not the person to whom the information relates has requested or consented to disclosure. For instance, the Act authorizes disclosures under, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), Conditions of Disclosure. The Act also authorizes agencies, such as the Department, to make such disclosures, once they publish a description of what are called the “routine uses” of information in their records.

    A level of protection is afforded to individuals because the routine use must be published in the Federal Register, and the routine use must include categories of users and the purpose of the use. A routine use must also be compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. Further, another level of protection may be evidenced through the fact that publication of routine uses by the Department does not require it to disclose information in a record—it merely permits the Department to disclose information when deemed appropriate or necessary by the Department. The Department's policy is to carefully decide whether a disclosure of information permitted by a routine use is appropriate or necessary, based on the totality of the circumstances. If the Department believes that disclosure of information protected by the Privacy Act is appropriate or necessary in a situation not covered by a routine use, or by any other exception to the act's general prohibition on disclosure, it will seek written consent for the disclosure from the person to whom the record pertains. Lastly, a level of protection comes from the Privacy Act requirement for agencies to maintain an accurate accounting of certain disclosures, except in instances where disclosure is made to the subject of the record. This accounting must be maintained for a period of five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, and must be made available upon request by the subject of the record, except for disclosures related to law enforcement activities. With regard to this accounting of disclosures, according to the OMB Privacy Act Implementation Guide, published in the Federal Register on July 9, 1975 (40 FR 28948-28978), “the intent was to view the accounting of disclosures as other than a system of records and to conclude that an accounting need not be maintained for the disclosures from the accounting of disclosures.”

    Several commenters expressed concerns that this system of records could create Privacy Act issues. Along those lines, one commenter specifically questioned the protections afforded employees when data is released under one or more of the exemptions identified in notice's the SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT section. While system exemptions from certain provisions of the Privacy Act have been identified in this notice, those provisions are allowed by and used following the Privacy Act; they do not revise the Act. Further, it was recognized in the OMB Privacy Act Implementation Guide, published in the Federal Register on July 9, 1975 (40 FR 28973), that “ ‘due process' in both civil action and criminal prosecution will assure that individuals have a reasonable opportunity to learn of the existence of, and to challenge, investigatory records, which are to be used in legal proceedings. To the extent that such an investigatory record is used as a basis for denying an individual any right, privilege, or benefit (including employment) to which the individual would be entitled in the absence of that record, the individual must be granted access to that record except to the extent that access would reveal the identity of a confidential source.”

    Two other commenters stated that the notice does not provide any provisions or processes regarding any final disposition of employee personal information (PII) once it has been disclosed to other agencies, entities, or persons. This comment goes beyond the requirements of the Privacy Act.

    More than one commenter submitted the view that the routine uses listed in this notice may result in matching programs as described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(8). Further, commenters added that if the Department engages in any matching program, it must follow matching program requirements outlined in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o). The Department recognizes the concerns commenters may have about matching programs with respect to this system of records and would like to assure those commenters that should the Department engage in matching programs as defined by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, Public Law 100-503 (“Computer Matching Act”), it will follow applicable procedural requirements. The Computer Matching Act, which amended the Privacy Act, establishes procedural safeguards affecting agencies' use of Privacy Act records when conducting certain types of computer matching programs. These procedures ensure the integrity, privacy, and verification of data used in computerized matching operations, and the Department intends to fully comply with these procedures should it engage in matching programs covered by the Computer Matching Act.

    Multiple commenters requested that the Department work in collaboration with unions to create a more useful and less intrusive monitoring system of records. The Department has proposed to the Labor Management Forum Members, to hold a meeting(s) to discuss the appropriate process for access, reviewing and acting upon data collected through an electronic process. Those meetings should begin in early FY 16. In the view of the same commenters, the Department should provide notice and allow bargaining under Federal Services-Labor Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101-7135. The issuance of this notice by the Department is a matter of compliance with the Privacy Act and in no way interferes with labor's right to bargain over matters that relate to a change in working conditions.

    In the view of one of the commenters, “the Department failed to make any attempt to notify its labor partners of these proposed changes.” In order to address any concerns with notification, the Department extended the comment period for this SORN so that labor unions had ample time to submit comments.

    One commenter wondered if the data expected to be obtained through COMMERCE/DEPT-25 was worth the enormous investment of time in labor-management negotiation, Congressional review, and potential negative response from Department employees over such a program. Through a variety of methods, the Department already collects employee data. This SORN ensure employees understand the system of records and the means through which they can ensure that their data is correct.

    Several commenters conveyed their concerns about data security regarding this system of records, especially in light of the recent OPM data breaches in which millions of current and former Federal employees' records were compromised. One of those commenters put forth that while the notice listed safeguards for the system, “it was unclear whether the data would be encrypted.” Another commenter raised concerns about identity theft and the potential use of data for unintended purposes that increases risks and reduce privacy protections, especially in the context of data aggregated in one database. The Department recognizes these concerns and is applying lessons learned from recent high-profile cyber events. As with all Department IT systems, the appropriate FISMA controls, specifically those regarding encryption, will be applied based upon the security categorization of the system and the data contained within the system. The Department has taken the potential risk related to data aggregation into consideration with respect to this system of records. With this in mind, the Department has applied and will continue to apply all appropriate FISMA controls based upon the security categorization of a system.

    More than one commenter suggested that the Department provided insufficient [business] justification for this system of records in the Purposes section. The Department disagrees with this suggestion. As articulated in the PURPOSES section, this notice is intended to ensure protection of Department assets.

    One commenter suggested that the system of records should exclude home telephone numbers because “the connection of home telephone to the purposes stated in the notice is unexplained and unclear.” While this notice is intended to let employees know what information “may” be collected and what possible use of that information exists, the collection of a “home” telephone number for this system of records is not a mandatory requirement and as such the individuals have the option of not providing their home telephone number. However, having contact information, such as home telephone number, serves a number of purposes, including but not limited to Continuity of Operations (COOP) activities, telework, and notification of family in the event of an emergency.

    The same commenter also submitted that “social security numbers [(SSN] should be excluded and replaced by an employee number.” The commenter said the “connection of [SSN] to the purposes stated in the notice is unexplained and unclear.” The Department has not adopted this suggestion, because the use of SSNs in this system of records is essential due to the various categories of individuals in the system. For instance, government contractors would not have an employee number. SSNs are also necessary for the Department to accurately report employees' earnings, so they get the proper credit towards their social security benefit. Even with the addition of an employee number, the Department would still need to capture the social security number for the reasons stated above.

    The Department has considered this comment and to help clarify the meaning of cellular numbers, the term “government and personal” will be added before “cellular telephone number” under the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM section. It should be noted that the Department collects both personal and government cell numbers, because in many cases employees have dropped land line service, so their cell number is their personal home number. As previously stated, having contact information, such as a telephone number, serves a number of purposes, including but not limited to COOP activities, telework, and notification of family in the event of an emergency.

    One commenter suggested that “if a security problem does exist within the Commerce Department and its various Agencies that requires [the] level of attention [identified in this system], consultation with authoritative IT Security professionals on implementing a best-practices solution would seem to be a simpler, more cost-effective, and less intrusive alternative.” The Department appreciates this commenter's view, and it regularly consults with other Government agencies and industry regarding best-practices for the identification, mitigation, and response to cyber related issues and concerns with a view towards improving Departmental capabilities. The Department proactively places emphasis on all phases of the NIST Cyber Security Framework—Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.

    More than one commenter maintained that the descriptors in this notice need to be defined in more detail. For instance, some suggested that more information should be provided for the Purposes, Retrievability, and Record Sources sections. One of the commenters added that more clarity was needed for the RETRIEVABILITY section, specifically for the statement “Information may be retrieved . . . by automated search based on extant indices and automated capabilities . . .” While the Department disagrees with the commenters that the descriptors in this notice need to be defined in more detail within the notice, it does agree that it would be beneficial to create a document explaining SORN descriptors. As a way to provide explanations about the different sections of a SORN, the Department has produced a fact sheet about SORN descriptors, which will be made available on its public Web site under the Office of Privacy and Open Government Web page at http://www.osec.doc.gov/opog/.

    One of the same commenters suggested that a plain language document should be provided that discusses this notice and its relationship to the Privacy Act. The Department agrees with the commenter that is would be beneficial to create a document explaining this notice and its relationship to the Privacy Act. As a start to providing the type of information requested, the Department has produced a fact sheet about SORN COMMERCE/DEPT-25, which will be made available on its public Web site under the Office of Privacy and Open Government Web page at http://www.osec.doc.gov/opog/.

    In the view of another commenter, this notice did not provide an indication of “how long information is retained and how that duration relates to the proposed uses.” The Department notes that every SORN, including this one, contains a RETENTION AND DISPOSAL section, which describes the policies and guidelines in place with regard to the retention and destruction of records in this system.

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Michael J. Toland, Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Commerce amends the Privacy Act System of Records: “COMMERCE/DEPT-25, Access Control and Identity Management System,” with the minor change as follows:

    To help clarify the meaning of cellular numbers under the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM section, the term “government and personal” will be added before the language “cellular telephone number”.

    [FR Doc. 2015-28056 Filed 11-3-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-53-2015] Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc., Subzone 119I, (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices); Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of Comment Period

    At the request of the applicant, a public hearing will be held on the application for additional production authority submitted by The Coleman Company, Inc., for activity within Subzone 119I in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota (80 FR 49986, 8-18-2015). The Commerce examiner will hold the public hearing on December 3, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Hoover Building, Room 3407, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Interested parties should indicate their intent to participate in the hearing and provide a summary of their remarks (submitted to [email protected] or the address indicated below) no later than November 30, 2015.

    The comment period for the case referenced above will be extended through January 4, 2016. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until January 19, 2016. Submissions (signed original and one electronic copy) shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21013, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28280 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 19, 2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

    Agenda

    OPEN SESSION:

    1. Opening Remarks and Introduction.

    2. Remarks from BIS senior management.

    3. Report from working groups: Composite Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group.

    4. Report on regime-based activities.

    5. Public Comments and New Business.

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than November 12, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28191 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation and Related Equipment; Technical Advisory Committee Notice of Open Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 18, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Status reports by working group chairs.

    3. Public comments and Proposals.

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than November 10, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting.

    Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28199 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-863, A-475-832, A-570-026, A-580-878, A-583-856, C-533-864, C-475-833, C-570-027, C-580-879, C-583-857] Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan.1 On July 23, 2015, the Department received timely allegations that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under investigation.2 Based on information provided by Petitioners, data placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory respondents, and data collected by the Department, the Department preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of CORE from certain producers and exporters from Italy, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan.

    1See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Against Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, dated June 3, 2015 (the Petitions). The petitioners for these investigations are United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries, Inc. (Petitioners).

    2See Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Critical Circumstances Allegations, July 23, 2105 (Critical Circumstances Allegation).

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) that “the alleged countervailable subsidy” is inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement of the World Trade Organization, and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) that the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 19 CFR 351.206 provides that imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive” and defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later.3 The regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.4

    3See 19 CFR 351.206(i).

    4Id.

    Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement

    To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence currently on the record of the five CVD investigations. Specifically, as determined in our initiation checklists, the following subsidy programs, alleged in the Petitions and supported by information reasonably available to Petitioners, appear to be either export contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.

    India: Four export-contingent duty exemption/remission schemes,5 four duty and tax exemption programs for “Export Oriented Units,” 6 the Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme,7 Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing,8 Market Development Assistance Scheme,9 Market Access Initiative,10 Focus Product Scheme,11 Status Certificate Program,12 five duty and tax exemption programs for special economic zones,13 Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme,14 and three duty and tax exemption programs provided by the state of Gujarat for special economic zones 15

    5See India CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 7-9.

    6Id. at 9-12.

    7Id. at 12.

    8Id. at 13.

    9Id. at 13-14

    10Id. at 14

    11Id. at 14-15.

    12Id. at 16.

    13Id. at 17-20

    14Id. at 23-24.

    15Id. at 32-34.

    Italy: Several export-contingent preferential financial products provided by the Special Section for Export Credit Insurance 16

    16See Italy CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 15-16.

    The PRC: Export loans,17 Income Tax Credits for Domestically-Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment,18 Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for Foreign-Invested Enterprises—Export Oriented FIEs,19 Foreign Trade Development Fund Grants,20 Export Assistance Grants,21 Programs to Rebate Antidumping Legal Fees,22 Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China World Top Brands,23 Sub-Central Government Programs to Promote Famous Export Brands and China World Top Brands,24 and Export Interest Subsidies 25

    17See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 8-9.

    18Id. at 18-19.

    19Id. at 22.

    20Id. at 36-37.

    21Id. at 37.

    22Id. at 37-38.

    23Id. at 38.

    24Id. at 39.

    25Id. at 40.

    Korea: Several export-contingent preferential financial products and services provided by the Korean Export-Import Bank Countervailable Subsidy Programs,26 preferential loans from the Korea Development Bank and Industrial Base Fund,27 and export financing provided by the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation 28

    26See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 10-12.

    27Id. at 13-14.

    28Id. at 15-16.

    Taiwan: Grants for International Development Activities 29

    29See Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, June 23, 2015, at 14-15.

    Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there are alleged subsidies in each CVD investigation inconsistent with the SCM agreement.

    History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair Value and Material Injury

    In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the same merchandise. The Department has previously issued an AD order on CORE from Korea,30 based on nearly identical HTS categories, as well as AD orders on carbon steel flat products from the PRC.31 Moreover, there are current AD orders imposed by other World Trade Organization members against certain coated steel products (i.e., carbon steel flat products either clad, plated or coated with zinc, aluminum, or nickel) from Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan.32 Certain HTS numbers subject to these orders overlap with HTS numbers listed under our current CORE scope. Therefore, there is a history of dumping of subject merchandise exported from Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan.

    30See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000).

    31See Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 60081 (October 21, 2003) and Notice of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 59561 (November 29, 2001).

    32See Australia—AD/CVD Order on Zinc Coated (Galvanised) Steel and Aluminum Zinc Coated Steel from the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, Anti-Dumping Duty Notice No. 2013/66 (August 5, 2013); Thailand—AD Order on Painted Hot Dip Galvanized Cold Rolled Steel and Painted Hot Dip Cold Rolled Steel Plated or Coated with Aluminum Zinc Alloys and Certain Hot Dip Cold Rolled Steel Plated or Coated with Aluminum Zinc Alloys from the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan: Royal Thai Gazette, Vol. 130, Special Section 3 (October 1, 2013) (updated re unpainted products, Royal Thai Gazette, Vol. 132, Special Section 32 (September 2, 2015)); Colombia—AD Order on Galvanized Smooth Sheet from the PRC: Diario Oficial, No. 49.084 (March 6, 2014); and Russia—AD Order on Cold-Rolled Flat Steel Products with Polymer Coating from the PRC: Eurasian Economic Commission, Decision No. 49 (May 24, 2012).

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in petitions.33 The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent (depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.34 Dumping margins alleged in all five AD petitions are significantly above the 15 to 25 percent threshold: 71.09 percent (India),35 123.76 percent (Italy),36 80.06 percent (Korea),37 120.20 percent (the PRC),38 and 84.40 percent (Taiwan).39 Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude importers knew or should have known exporters in all five countries were selling at less than fair value.

    33See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).

    34See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) (unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged in the final determination).

    35 The Petitions, Volume VI at 5.

    36Id., Volume IX at 28.

    37Id., Volume IV at 13.

    38Id., Volume II at 15.

    39Id., Volume X at 7.

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).40 If the ITC finds material injury (as opposed to the threat of injury), we normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with sufficient knowledge of injury. Where, as in this case,41 the ITC finds only threat of material injury, the Department may consider additional sources of information, such as trade and price statistics or press reports.42 Petitioners placed several press reports on the record indicating injury. For example: U.S. steel companies are struggling against a combination of lower oil prices, oversupply and excessive imports fed by a strong dollar. Those headwinds have become a perfect storm that could lead to more idled plants and layoffs, and spur a major international trade case against China, which steel makers accuse of undercutting the market with artificially low-priced product. U.S. Steel executives have expressed the great concern about cheap imports. On Thursday, CEO and President Mario Longhi testified before the Congressional Steel Caucus and warned of long-term damage to domestic steel makers from what the industry says is illegal dumping by foreign companies. China's state-subsidized industry continue to pump out steel, even as demand slows at home. That has led to surging exports, particularly to the United States.43

    40See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).

    41See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-534-538 and 731-TA-1274-1278 (Preliminary), 80 FR 44151 (July 24, 2015).

    42See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999) at Comment 2.

    43 Critical Circumstances Allegation at Exhibit 8 (article published in the Pittsburgh Tribune).

    In addition, the Department has relied on massive imports and high dumping margins as factors indicating importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury.44 As noted above, dumping margins alleged in the five AD petitions range from 71.09 percent to 123.76 percent. As discussed below, we have determined imports were massive for certain producers/exporters shipping from Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury as a result of sales sold at less than fair value, exported from all five countries.

    44Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964, 61967 (November 20, 1997).

    Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the “comparison period”). Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period.

    Based on evidence provided by Petitioners, the Department finds that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department concludes that the factual information provided by Petitioners indicates that by March 2015, importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that proceedings were likely. Among the documents Petitioners provided to support their claim of so-called “early knowledge,” the Department finds the following particularly relevant.

    • On March 10, 2015, Steel Market Update acknowledged and responded to an influx of “recent” inquiries from importers of cold-rolled steel and CORE steel products “asking questions about the potential for a trade case or anti-dumping filing by the domestic mills against foreign steel imports.” 45

    45See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Exhibit 7.

    • On March 26, 2015, American Metal Market issued a press release stating that nearly 70 percent of industry participants expected cold-rolled and CORE steel cases to be filed in 2015.46

    46Id. at Exhibit 11.

    • On March 27, 2015, the Pittsburgh Tribune published an article stating that “domestic steel makers are beginning to take their case to Washington.” One expert quoted in the article concluded that a trade case appeared “inevitable.” 47

    47Id. at Exhibit 8.

    • On March 30, 2015, Barron's published analysis by Credit Suisse concluding U.S. steel industry officials had “no intention of delay” and would pursue trade remedies as soon as possible. The article states that the U.S. industry would not pursue safeguard actions, but instead would pursue AD/CVD remedies focused on hot-rolled coil, cold-rolled coil, and CORE steel products.48

    48Id. at Exhibit 10.

    While additional information presented in Petitioners' exhibits indicate rumors of trade cases had been circulating as far back as 2014,49 the above statements indicate that by March 2015, these rumors had turned to expectations among steel importers, exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions were inevitable.

    49 This fact is noted in identical submissions filed on August 3, 2015, on behalf of various respondents in the AD and CVD proceedings for Italy, Korea, and Taiwan. These submissions also claim Petitioners have not demonstrated the need for expedited action, but there is no requirement that such a need be demonstrated. Sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act call for prompt action by the Department. The submissions also argue that we cannot reach a preliminary critical circumstances determination when the ITC finds “threat of injury.” While it is correct that final measures cannot be applied before an order when the ITC finds “threat of injury,” the ITC has not yet issued a final determination. Moreover, as discussed above, the Department has previously issued preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determinations when the ITC has found “threat of injury.” Finally, the submissions also claim there is a seasonal increase in shipments at the beginning of the year in anticipation of spring and summer months. It is unclear, however, how such a seasonal increase would affect our calculations (given that our comparison period starts in March, after this seasonal increase would, apparently, have been long underway), and parties provided no suggestions for adjusting the shipment data on the record to account for the alleged seasonal increase.

    Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department compared the total volume of shipments from March 2015 through September 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the preceding seven-month period of August 2014 through February 2015. For “all others,” the Department compared Global Trade Atlas (GTA) data for the period March through August (the last month for which GTA data is currently available) with the proceeding six-month period of September 2014 through February 2015.50 We first subtracted shipments reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from the GTA data. For non-cooperating mandatory respondents (i.e., those mandatory respondents that did not respond to our critical circumstances questionnaire or who otherwise indicated their unwillingness to participate in the investigations), we determined, on the basis of adverse facts available,51 that there has been a massive surge in imports. Accordingly, we preliminarily determined the following producers/exporters had massive surges in imports.52

    50 The Department gathered GTA data under the following harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    51See Section 776 of the Act.

    52See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda for each proceeding dated concurrently with this Federal Register notice.

    • Italy (C-475-833): ILVA S.p.A. (ILVA) • Korea (A-580-878): Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai); “All Others” • Korea (C-580-879): “All Others” • PRC (A-570-026): the PRC-wide entity; Hebei Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Tangshan Branch) (Tangshan); Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Baoshan) • PRC (C-570-027): Angang Group Hong Kong Company Ltd. (Angang); Duferco S.A. (Duferco); Handan Iron & Steel Group (Handan); Changshu Everbright Material Technology (Everbright); Baoshan • Taiwan (A-583-856 and C-583-857): “All Others” Conclusion

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel products shipped by certain producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows.

    Country Case No. Affirmative preliminary
  • critical circumstances
  • determination
  • Negative preliminary
  • critical circumstances
  • determination
  • PRC A-570-026 the PRC-wide entity; Tangshan; Baoshan Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd. (YPC); All Other producers/exporters entitled to a separate rate. C-570-027 Angang, Duferco, Handan, Everbright, Baoshan YPC; All Other producers/exporters. Korea A-580-878 Hyundai; All Other producers/exporters Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk/Union). C-580-879 All Other producers/exporters Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu); Dongkuk/Union. Taiwan A-583-856 All Other producers/exporters Yieh Phui Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui); Prosperity Tieh Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Prosperity). C-583-857 All Other producers/exporters Yieh Phui; Prosperity. India A-533-863 no companies Uttam Galva Steels, Ltd. (Uttam); JSW Steel Limited (JSW); All Other producers/exporters. C-533-864 no companies Uttam; JSW; All Other producers/exporters. Italy A-475-832 no companies Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A. (Arvedi); Marcegaglia S.p.A. (Marcegaglia); All Other producers/exporters. C-475-833 ILVA Arvedi; Marcegaglia; All Other producers/exporters.
    Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue final determinations concerning critical circumstances when we issue our final subsidy and less-than-fair-value determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary subsidies and less than fair value determinations.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determinations.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with sections 703(e)(2), because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de minimis rates,53 we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of “provisional measures” (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    53 The preliminary determinations concerning the provision of countervailable subsidies are currently scheduled for November 2, 2015.

    In accordance with sections 733(e)(2), because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports exported by certain producers and exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de minimis rates,54 we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of “provisional measures” (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    54 The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less than fair value are currently scheduled for December 21, 2015.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28252 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-868] Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on large residential washers (LRWs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (POR) is August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Goldberger or Reza Karamloo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4470, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 8, 2015, the Department issued the final results of the administrative review of the AD order on LRWs from Korea.1 On September 9, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results. 2 On September 15, 2015, we received a timely ministerial error allegation from respondent LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE) regarding its margin calculation.3 We did not receive rebuttal comments from the petitioner.

    1See Large Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014, 80 FR 55595 (September 16, 2015) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum to the File, “Final Results Margin Calculation for LGE,” (September 8, 2015).

    3See Letter from LGE, “LG Electronics' Request for Correction of Clerical Errors—Large Residential Washers from Korea,” (September 15, 2015).

    In the Final Results, we made a ministerial error by not excluding from our margin analysis certain U.S. sales with reported dates prior to August 3, 2012, the effective date of suspension of liquidation and the beginning of the POR.4 To correct the error identified by LGE, we included additional programming language in the margin program.5

    4See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, from David Goldberger and Reza Karamloo, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, “Ministerial Error Allegation for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (Ministerial Error Memorandum).

    5Id., at 2-3.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Korea. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.6

    6 For a complete description of the scope of the order see the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the Final Results. The HTSUS numbers are revised from the numbers previously stated in the scope.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We analyzed the ministerial error allegation and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in identifying U.S. sales to be excluded from our analysis according to the reported entry date.

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results with respect to LGE.7 The revised weighted-average dumping margin for LGE is detailed below.

    7See Ministerial Error Memorandum. The weighted-average dumping margins for Daewoo Electronics Corporation (Daewoo) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung) in the Final Results have not changed.

    Amended Final Results of the Review

    As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for LGE for the period August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014:

    Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • LG Electronics, Inc 1.38
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the amended final results of this administrative review.

    For those sales where LGE reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales to that importer. For those sales where LGE did not report the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific customer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rate is de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated an importer-specific ad valorem ratio based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries without regard to antidumping duties pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For Daewoo's and Samsung's U.S. sales, we based the assessment rate assigned to the corresponding entries on the weighted-average dumping margins listed in the Final Results.

    The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.8 If applicable, this clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by LGE, for which the company did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 11.80 percent,9 if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

    8See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

    9See Large Residential Washers From Mexico and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 11148 (February 15, 2013) (AD Order).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for LGE will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the amended final results of this administrative review, as shown above; (2) the cash deposit rates for Daewoo and Samsung will continue to be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the Final Results; (3) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (4) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (5) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.80 percent, the all-others rate determined in the LTFV investigation.10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    10Id.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28249 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-842] Large Residential Washers From Mexico: Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on large residential washers (LRWs) from Mexico to correct ministerial errors. The period of review (POR) is August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-1823, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 8, 2015, the Department issued the final results of the administrative review of the AD order on LRWs from Mexico.1 On September 10, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results. 2 On September 15, 2015, we received a timely ministerial error allegation from the respondent Electrolux Home Products Corp. N.V. and Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (collectively, Electrolux) regarding its margin calculation.3 On September 21, 2015, the petitioner filed comments agreeing with this allegation.4

    1See Large Residential Washers From Mexico: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014, 80 FR 55335 (September 15, 2015) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results I&D Memorandum).

    2See “Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Electrolux,” dated September 8, 2015.

    3See “Large Residential Washers from Mexico: Ministerial Error Comments,” dated September 15, 2015.

    4See “Large Residential Washers from Mexico: Petitioner's Reply To Electrolux's Ministerial Error Submission,” dated September 22, 2015.

    Based on our analysis of the allegation, we determined that we made two ministerial errors with respect to currency conversions related to certain movement expenses incurred on third country sales.5 As explained in the Ministerial Error Decision Memorandum, correction of these errors changes the results of our differential pricing analysis such that we determined it appropriate to apply the mixed alternative method in making U.S. price and normal value comparisons in calculating the amended weighted-average dumping margin for Electrolux.

    5See Memorandum from Brian Smith, Team Leader, to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office II, “2012-2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Residential Washers from Mexico: Ministerial Error Allegation for the Amended Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (Ministerial Error Decision Memorandum).

    In the Final Results, we did not address certain comments regarding differential pricing and zeroing raised in the case brief submitted by Electrolux, noting that those issues were moot because the Department continued to apply (since the preliminary results) the standard A-to-A method to calculate Electrolux's weighted-average dumping margin.6 However, the correction of the ministerial errors changed the results of our differential pricing analysis such that we are no longer applying the A-to-A method in calculating Electrolux's final amended dumping margin. As a result, the differential pricing and zeroing issues raised by Electrolux are no longer moot and we addressed them in a separate memorandum accompanying this notice. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum 7 which is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6See Final Results I&D Memorandum at Comments 3-5.

    7See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Brian Smith and Reza Karamloo, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Large Residential Washers from Mexico,” dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.8

    8 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Final Results I&D Memorandum.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” As discussed above, we analyzed the ministerial error allegation and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculation of Electrolux's margin in the Final Results due to an inadvertent currency assignment affecting certain movement expenses associated with third country sales.

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results with respect to Electrolux.9 The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Electrolux is detailed below.

    9See Ministerial Error Decision Memorandum.

    Amended Final Results of the Review

    As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 3, 2012, through January 31, 2014:

    Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Electrolux Home Products Corp. NV/Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V 6.22
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 41 days after publication of the amended final results of this administrative review.

    For Electrolux, the Department calculated ad valorem importer-specific assessment rates equal to the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales. Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries without regard to antidumping duties pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Electrolux which it did not know were destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.10

    10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Electrolux will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the amended final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 36.52 percent, the all-others rate determined in the LTFV investigation.11 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    11See Large Residential Washers From Mexico and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 11148 (February 15, 2013) (AD Order).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28248 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-007] Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on barium chloride from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 27, 1984, the Department published the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of barium chloride from the PRC.1 On October 17, 1984, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on imports of barium chloride from the PRC.2

    1See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China, 49 FR 33916 (August 27, 1984) (“Final Determination”).

    2See Antidumping Duty Order; Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China, 49 FR 40635 (October 17, 1984) (“Order”).

    On May 1, 2015, the Department initiated the fourth five-year (“sunset”) review of the AD order on barium chloride from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).3 As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.4 On October 30, 2015, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

    3See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 24900 (May 1, 2015).

    4See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 36973 (June 29, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    5See Barium Chloride From China: Determination, 80 FR 66935 (October 30, 2015); see also Barium Chloride from China (Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Fourth Review), USITC Publication 4574 (October 2015)).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2-2H2O, currently classifiable under item number 2827.39.45.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).6 Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs and Border Protection purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

    6 The scope reflects the HTSUS item number currently in effect.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on barium chloride from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. This five-year (“sunset”) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28250 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE268 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Southwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of Letters of Authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that Letters of Authorization (LOA) have been issued to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) for the take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted in multiple specified geographical regions.

    DATES:

    Effective from October 30, 2015, through October 29, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    The LOAs and supporting documentation are available on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    Summary of Request

    On April 25, 2013, we received an adequate and complete request from SWFSC for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries research activities. On February 13, 2015 (80 FR 8166), we published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, requesting comments and information related to the SWFSC request for thirty days. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58982). For detailed information on this action, please refer to those documents. The regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during fisheries research activities in three separate specified geographic regions.

    SWFSC conducts fisheries research using pelagic trawl gear used at various levels in the water column, pelagic longlines with multiple hooks, bottom-contact trawls, and other gear. If a marine mammal interacts with gear deployed by SWFSC, the outcome could potentially be Level A harassment, serious injury (i.e., any injury that will likely result in mortality), or mortality. We pooled the estimated number of incidents of take resulting from gear interactions and assessed the potential impacts accordingly. SWFSC also uses various active acoustic devices in the conduct of fisheries research, and use of these devices has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals. Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on ice may also occur, in the Antarctic only, as a result of visual disturbance from vessels conducting SWFSC research.

    The SWFSC conducts fisheries research surveys in the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP), and the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Ecosystem (AMLR). As required by the MMPA, SWFSC's request was considered separately for each specified geographical region, and three separate LOAs have been issued. In the CCE, SWFSC is authorized to take individuals of seventeen species by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality (M/SI + Level A) and of 34 species by Level B harassment. In the ETP, SWFSC is authorized to take individuals of eleven species by M/SI + Level A and of 31 species by Level B harassment. In the AMLR, SWFSC is authorized to take individuals of seventeen species by Level B harassment. No takes by M/SI + Level A are anticipated in the AMLR.

    Authorization

    We have issued LOAs to SWFSC authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to fishery research activities, as described above. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) Implementation of a “move-on” rule in certain circumstances that is expected to reduce the potential for physical interaction with marine mammals; (2) use of a marine mammal excluder device in certain trawl nets; and (3) use of acoustic deterrent devices on certain trawl nets. Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. The SWFSC will submit reports as required.

    Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under these LOAs will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28221 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE244 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 2016 Research Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces its request for applications for the 2016 shark research fishery from commercial shark fishermen with directed or incidental shark limited access permits. The shark research fishery allows for the collection of fishery-dependent and biological data for future stock assessments and to meet the research objectives of the Agency. The only commercial vessels authorized to land sandbar sharks are those participating in the shark research fishery. Shark research fishery permittees may also land other large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks. Commercial shark fishermen who are interested in participating in the shark research fishery need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Permit Application in order to be considered.

    DATES:

    Shark Research Fishery Applications must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time, on December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit completed applications to the HMS Management Division at:

    Mail: Attn: Guý DuBeck, HMS Management Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Fax: (301) 713-1917.

    Email: [email protected]

    For copies of the Shark Research Fishery Permit Application, please write to the HMS Management Division at the address listed above, call (301) 427-8503 (phone), or fax a request to (301) 713-1917. Copies of the Shark Research Fishery Application are also available at the HMS Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/index.htm. Additionally, please be advised that your application may be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Guý DuBeck, at (301) 427-8503 (phone) or (301) 713-1917 (fax) or Delisse Ortiz at 240-681-9037.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

    The shark research fishery was established, in part, to maintain time series data for stock assessments and to meet NMFS' research objectives. Since the shark research fishery was established in 2008, the research fishery has allowed for: The collection of fishery-dependent data for current and future stock assessments; the operation of cooperative research to meet NMFS' ongoing research objectives; the collection of updated life-history information used in the sandbar shark (and other species) stock assessment; the collection of data on habitat preferences that might help reduce fishery interactions through bycatch mitigation; evaluation of the utility of the mid-Atlantic closed area on the recovery of dusky sharks and collection of hook-timer and pop-up satellite archival tag (PSAT) information to determine at-vessel and post-release mortality of dusky sharks; and collection of sharks to determine the weight conversion factor from dressed weight to whole weight.

    The shark research fishery allows selected commercial fishermen the opportunity to earn revenue from selling additional sharks, including sandbar sharks. Only the commercial shark fishermen selected to participate in the shark research fishery are authorized to land sandbar sharks subject to the sandbar quota available each year. The base quota is 90.7 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw), although this number may be reduced in the event of overharvests, if any. The selected shark research fishery permittees will also be allowed to land other LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks per any restrictions established on their shark research fishery permit. Generally, the shark research fishery permits are valid only for the calendar year for which they are issued.

    The specific 2016 trip limits and number of trips per month will depend on the availability of funding, number of selected vessels, the availability of observers, the available quota, and the objectives of the research fishery and will be included in the permit terms at time of issuance. The number of participants in the research fishery changes each year. In 2015, seven fishermen were chosen to participate. From 2008 through 2015, there has been an average of seven participants each year with the range from five to eleven. The trip limits and the number of trips taken per month have changed each year the research fishery has been active. Participants may also be limited on the amount of gear they can deploy on a given set (e.g., number of hooks and sets, soak times, length of longline).

    In the beginning of the 2015 fishing season, NMFS split the sandbar and LCS research fishery quotas equally among selected participants, with each vessel allocated 13.3 mt dw of sandbar shark research fishery quota and 5.7 mt dw of other LCS research fishery quota. On August 18, 2015, NMFS implemented Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50074; Amendment 6) which, among other things, established a new base annual quota for the sandbar shark research fishery as 90.7 mt dw (199,943 lb dw). To account for the lower sandbar shark quota, NMFS revised the equal allocation of every participating vessel in the shark research fishery to 80 percent of their current allocation minus their landings up until Amendment 6 was implemented. NMFS also established a regional dusky bycatch limit where once three or more dusky sharks were caught dead in any of five designated regions across the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic through the entire year, any shark research fishery permit holder in that region was not able to soak their gear for longer than 3 hours. If, after the change in soak time, there were three or more additional dusky shark interactions (alive or dead) observed, shark research fishery permit holders were not able to make a trip in that region for the remainder of the year, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS. There were slightly different measures established for shark research fishery participants in the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in order to allow NMFS observers to place satellite archival tags on dusky sharks and collect other scientific information on dusky sharks while also minimizing any dusky shark mortality.

    Participants were also required to keep any dead sharks, unless they were a prohibited species, in which case they were required to release them. If the regional non-blacknose SCS, blacknose, and/or pelagic shark management group quotas were closed, then the shark research fishery permit holder fishing in the closed region had to discard all of the species from the closed management groups regardless of condition. Any sharks, except prohibited species or closed management groups (i.e., SCS or pelagic sharks), caught and brought to the vessel alive could have been released alive or landed. In addition, participants were restricted by the number of longline sets as well as the number of hooks they could deploy and have on board the vessel. The vessels participating in the shark research fishery fished an average of one trip per month.

    In order to participate in the shark research fishery, commercial shark fishermen need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Application by the deadline noted above (see DATES) showing that the vessel and owner(s) meet the specific criteria outlined below.

    Research Objectives

    Each year, the research objectives are developed by a shark board, which is comprised of representatives within NMFS, including representatives from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Panama City Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Narragansett Laboratory, the Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division, and the HMS Management Division. The research objectives for 2016 are based on various documents, including the 2012 Biological Opinion for the Continued Authorization of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries and the Federal Authorization of a Smoothhound Fishery, the 2010/2011 U.S. South Atlantic blacknose, U.S Gulf of Mexico blacknose, sandbar, and dusky sharks stock assessments, and the 2012 U.S. Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark stock assessment. The 2016 research objectives are:

    • Collect reproductive, length, sex, and age data from sandbar and other sharks throughout the calendar year for species-specific stock assessments;

    • Monitor the size distribution of sandbar sharks and other species captured in the fishery;

    • Continue on-going tagging shark programs for identification of migration corridors and stock structure using dart and/or spaghetti tags;

    • Maintain time-series of abundance from previously derived indices for the shark bottom longline observer program;

    • Sample fin sets (e.g., dorsal, pectoral) from prioritized species to further develop fin identification guides;

    • Acquire fin-clip samples of all shark and other species for genetic analysis;

    • Attach satellite archival tags to endangered smalltooth sawfish to provide information on critical habitat and preferred depth, consistent with the requirements listed in the take permit issued under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to the SEFSC observer program;

    • Attach satellite archival tags to prohibited dusky and other sharks, as needed, to provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns, and preferred depth;

    • Evaluate hooking mortality and post-release survivorship of dusky, hammerhead, blacktip, and other sharks using hook-timers and temperature-depth recorders;

    • Evaluate the effects of controlled gear experiments in order to determine the effects of potential hook changes to prohibited species interactions and fishery yields;

    • Examine the size distribution of sandbar and other sharks captured throughout the fishery including in the Mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure off the coast of North Carolina from January 1 through July 31; and

    • Develop allometric and weight relationships of selected species of sharks (e.g., hammerhead, sandbar, blacktip shark).

    Selection Criteria

    Shark Research Fishery Permit Applications will be accepted only from commercial shark fishermen who hold a current directed or incidental shark limited access permit. While incidental permit holders are welcome to submit an application, to ensure that an appropriate number of sharks are landed to meet the research objectives for this year, NMFS will give priority to directed permit holders as recommended by the shark board. As such, qualified incidental permit holders will be selected only if there are not enough qualified directed permit holders to meet research objectives.

    The Shark Research Fishery Permit Application includes, but is not limited to, a request for the following information: Type of commercial shark permit possessed; past participation and availability in the commercial shark fishery (not including sharks caught for display); past involvement and compliance with HMS observer programs per 50 CFR 635.7; past compliance with HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635; past and present availability to participate in the shark research fishery year-round; ability to fish in the regions and season requested; ability to attend necessary meetings regarding the objectives and research protocols of the shark research fishery; and ability to carry out the research objectives of the Agency. Preference will be given to those applicants who are willing and available to fish year-round and who affirmatively state that they intend to do so, in order to ensure the timely and accurate data collection NMFS needs to meet this year's research objectives. An applicant who has been charged criminally or civilly (e.g., issued a Notice of Violation and Assessment (NOVA) or Notice of Permit Sanction) for any HMS-related violation will not be considered for participation in the shark research fishery. In addition, applicants who were selected to carry an observer in the previous 2 years for any HMS fishery, but failed to contact NMFS to arrange the placement of an observer as required per 50 CFR 635.7, will not be considered for participation in the 2016 shark research fishery. Applicants who were selected to carry an observer in the previous 2 years for any HMS fishery and failed to comply with all the observer regulations per 50 CFR 635.7 will also not be considered. Exceptions will be made for vessels that were selected for HMS observer coverage but did not fish in the quarter when selected and thus did not require an observer. Applicants who do not possess a valid USCG safety inspection decal when the application is submitted will not be considered. Applicants who have been non-compliant with any of the HMS observer program regulations in the previous 2 years, as described above, may be eligible for future participation in shark research fishery activities by demonstrating 2 subsequent years of compliance with observer regulations at 50 CFR 635.7.

    Selection Process

    The HMS Management Division will review all submitted applications and develop a list of qualified applicants from those applications that are deemed complete. A qualified applicant is an applicant that has submitted a complete application by the deadline (see DATES) and has met the selection criteria listed above. Qualified applicants are eligible to be selected to participate in the shark research fishery for 2016. The HMS Management Division will provide the list of qualified applicants without identifying information to the SEFSC. The SEFSC will then evaluate the list of qualified applicants and, based on the temporal and spatial needs of the research objectives, the availability of observers, the availability of qualified applicants, and the available quota for a given year, will randomly select qualified applicants to conduct the prescribed research. Where there are multiple qualified applicants that meet the criteria, permittees will be randomly selected through a lottery system. If a public meeting is deemed necessary, NMFS will announce details of a public selection meeting in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

    Once the selection process is complete, NMFS will notify the selected applicants and issue the shark research fishery permits. The shark research fishery permits will be valid only in calendar year 2016. If needed, NMFS will communicate with the shark research fishery permit holders to arrange a captain's meeting to discuss the research objectives and protocols. NMFS held mandatory captain's meetings before observers were placed on vessels in 2013 (78 FR 14515; March 6, 2013), 2014 (79 FR 12155; March 4, 2014), and 2015 (80 FR 3221; January 22, 2015) and expects to hold one again in 2016. Once the fishery starts, the shark research fishery permit holders must contact the NMFS observer coordinator to arrange the placement of a NMFS-approved observer for each shark research trip.

    A shark research fishery permit will only be valid for the vessel and owner(s) and terms and conditions listed on the permit, and, thus, cannot be transferred to another vessel or owner(s). Shark research fishery permit holders must carry a NMFS-approved observer in order to land sandbar sharks. Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee that the permit holder will be assigned a NMFS-approved observer on any particular trip. Rather, issuance indicates that a vessel may be issued a NMFS-approved observer for a particular trip, and on such trips, may be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in 50 CFR 635.24(a). These retention limits will be based on available quota, number of vessels participating in the 2016 shark research fishery, the research objectives set forth by the shark board, the extent of other restrictions placed on the vessel, and may vary by vessel and/or location. When not operating under the auspices of the shark research fishery, the vessel would still be able to land LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks subject to existing retention limits on trips without a NMFS-approved observer.

    NMFS annually invites commercial shark permit holders (directed and incidental) to submit an application to participate in the shark research fishery. Permit applications can be found on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/index.htm or by calling (301) 427-8503. Final decisions on the issuance of a shark research fishery permit will depend on the submission of all required information by the deadline (see DATES), and NMFS' review of applicant information as outlined above. The 2016 shark research fishery will start after the opening of the shark fishery and under available quotas as published in a separate Federal Register final rule.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28257 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE299 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Advisory Panel AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; solicitation of nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS solicits nominations for the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP). NMFS consults with and considers the comments and views of the HMS AP when preparing and implementing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) or FMP amendments for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish. Nominations are being sought to fill approximately one-third (11) of the seats on the HMS AP for a 3-year appointment. Individuals with definable interests in the recreational and commercial fishing and related industries, environmental community, academia, and non-governmental organizations are considered for membership on the HMS AP.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit nominations and requests for the Advisory Panel Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line the following identifier: “HMS AP Nominations.”

    Mail: Margo Schulze-Haugen, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, NMFS SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Craig Cockrell at (301) 427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297, provided that the Secretary may establish Advisory Panels to assist in the collection and evaluation of information relevant to the development of any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or FMP amendment for any highly migratory species fishery that is under the Secretary's authority. NMFS has consulted with the HMS AP on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (April 1999); the HMS FMP (April 1999); Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 2003); the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2006); Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (April and October 2008, February and September 2009, May and September 2010, April and September 2011, March and September 2012, January and September 2013, April and September 2014, and March and September 2015); among other relevant fishery management issues.

    Procedures and Guidelines A. Nomination Procedures for Appointments to the Advisory Panel

    Nomination packages should include:

    1. The name of the nominee and a description of his/her interest in HMS or HMS fisheries, or in particular species of sharks, swordfish, tunas, or billfish;

    2. Contact information, including mailing address, phone, and email of the nominee;

    3. A statement of background and/or qualifications;

    4. A written commitment that the nominee shall actively participate in good faith, and consistent with ethics obligations, in the meetings and tasks of the HMS AP; and

    5. A list of outreach resources that the nominee has at his/her disposal to communicate HMS issues to various interest groups.

    Qualifications for HMS AP Membership

    Qualification for membership includes one or more of the following: (1) Experience in HMS recreational fisheries; (2) experience in HMS commercial fisheries; (3) experience in fishery-related industries (e.g., marinas, bait and tackle shops); (4) experience in the scientific community working with HMS; and/or (5) representation of a private, non-governmental, regional, national, or international organization representing marine fisheries, or environmental, governmental, or academic interests dealing with HMS.

    Tenure for the HMS AP

    Member tenure will be for 3 years (36 months), with approximately one-third of the members' terms expiring on December 31 of each year. Nominations are sought for terms beginning January 2016 and expiring December 2018.

    B. Participants

    Nominations for the HMS AP will be accepted to allow representation from commercial and recreational fishing interests, academic/scientific interests, and the environmental/non-governmental organization community, who are knowledgeable about Atlantic HMS and/or Atlantic HMS fisheries. Current representation on the HMS AP, as shown in Table 1, consists of 12 members representing commercial interests, 12 members representing recreational interests, 4 members representing environmental interests, 4 academic representatives, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Advisory Committee Chairperson. Each HMS AP member serves a 3-year term with approximately one-third of the total number of seats (33) expiring on December 31 of each year. NMFS seeks to fill 3 academic, 3 commercial, 4 recreational organization, and 1 environmental organization vacancies by December 31, 2015. NMFS will seek to fill vacancies based primarily on maintaining the current representation from each of the sectors. NMFS also considers species expertise and representation from the fishing regions (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) to ensure the diversity and balance of the AP. Table 1 includes the current representation on the HMS AP by sector, region, and species with terms that are expiring identified in bold. It is not meant to indicate that NMFS will only consider persons who have expertise in the species or fishing regions that are listed. Rather, NMFS will aim toward having as diverse and balanced an AP as possible.

    Table 1—Current Representation on the HMS AP by Sector, Region, and Species [Terms that are expiring or for whom current members are stepping down are in bold. NMFS tries to maintain diversity and balance in representation among fishing regions and species.] Sector Fishing region Species Date
  • appointed
  • Date term
  • expires
  • Academic All Tuna 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Academic Southeast/Gulf of Mexico Shark 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Academic Southeast Swordfish/HMS 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Academic All Swordfish/Tuna 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Commercial Southeast Shark 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Commercial Southeast Swordfish/Tuna 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Commercial Northeast Tuna 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Commercial Mid-Atlantic HMS/Shark 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Commercial Southeast Swordfish 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Commercial Gulf of Mexico Shark 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Commercial Gulf of Mexico Shark 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Commercial MidAtlantic HMS 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Commercial Northeast Tuna/Swordfish 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Commercial Gulf of Mexico Tuna/Swordfish 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Commercial Northeast Tuna 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Commercial Northeast Tuna 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Environmental All Tuna 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Environmental All Tuna 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Environmental All Shark 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Environmental All HMS 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Recreational Northeast Tuna/Shark 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Recreational Southeast Swordfish 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Recreational Northeast HMS 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Recreational Southeast HMS 1/1/2013 12/31/2015 Recreational Northeast HMS 1/1/2013 12/31/2016 Recreational Northeast Tuna 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Recreational Mid-Atlantic HMS 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Recreational Southeast Billfish 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Recreational Gulf of Mexico HMS 1/1/2014 12/31/2016 Recreational Gulf of Mexico/Southeast Billfish 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Recreational Mid-Atlantic Shark 1/1/2015 12/31/2017 Recreational Mid-Atlantic Tuna 1/1/2015 12/31/2017

    The intent is to have a group that, as a whole, reflects an appropriate and equitable balance and mix of interests given the responsibilities of the HMS AP.

    Five additional members on the HMS AP include one member representing each of the following Councils: New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. The HMS AP also includes 22 ex-officio participants: 20 representatives of the coastal states and two representatives of the interstate commissions (the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission).

    NMFS will provide the necessary administrative support, including technical assistance, for the HMS AP. However, NMFS will not compensate participants with monetary support of any kind. Depending on availability of funds, members may be reimbursed for travel costs related to the HMS AP meetings.

    C. Meeting Schedule

    Meetings of the HMS AP will be held as frequently as necessary but are routinely held twice each year—once in the spring, and once in the fall. The meetings may be held in conjunction with public hearings.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28263 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0122] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DWHS C01, entitled “Enterprise Support Portal (ESP)” to assist OSD Components in organizational management tasks, manpower-related tasks, and general administrative tasks related to employees by retrieving information from the authoritative sources and storing administrative information within the Enterprise Support Portal. To process network/system account requests, IT service/helpdesk requests, and facilities requests.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before December 7, 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 October 30, 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 30, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DWHS C01 System Name:

    Enterprise Support Portal (ESP) (March 5, 2013, 78 FR 14275)

    Changes: 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 contain herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    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. 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 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.

    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 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”

    [FR Doc. 2015-28139 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0121] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DWHS P50, entitled “iCompass, Learning Management System (LMS)” to manage and administer a Learning Management System (LMS) for training and development programs; to identify individual training needs; for the purpose of reporting, tracking, assessing and monitoring training events, and DoD FM certifications.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before December 7, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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 the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 30, 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 30, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DWHS P50 SYSTEM NAME:

    iCompass, Learning Management System (LMS) (July 23, 2013, 78 FR 44100)

    CHANGES:
    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Delete entry and replace with “Civilians, military members, and contractors assigned to the following Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) offices: Acquisition Technology and Logistics; U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces (CAAF); DoD Comptroller Office; Deputy Chief Management Officer; Office of Military Commissions; Defense Legal Services Agency/Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals; Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA); Defense Test Resource Management Center (DTRMC); Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA); Intelligence Oversight; Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) Legislative Affairs; Net Assessment; DoD Chief Information Office; Office of Economic Adjustment; DoD Office of General Counsel; OSD Operation Test & Evaluation; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Intelligence; Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; Pentagon Force Protection Agency; OUSD Policy; Department of Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Agency; Personnel and Readiness; Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; White House Military Office; Washington Headquarters Services (WHS); WHS Federal Voting Assistance Program; WHS Welfare & Recreation Association; and Military and DoD civilian financial managers.”

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, DoD identification (DoD ID) number, position title, work phone number, work email address, pay plan, series, grade, organization, supervisor, hire date, course name and course date and time of completed trainings, educational level of civilian employees, and Financial Management (FM) certification level.”

    AUTHORITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. Chapter 41, Government Employees Training Act; 5 CFR part 410, Office of Personnel Management-Training; DoDD 5105.53, Director of Administration and Management (DA&M); DoDD 5110.4, Washington Headquarters Services (WHS); and DoDI 1300.26, Operation of the DoD Financial Management Certification Program.”

    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 specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3) as follows:

    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.

    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 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.

    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”

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Delete entry and replace with “Program Manager, Washington Headquarters Services, Human Resource Directorate (HRD)/Transparency and Tools Division (TTD), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3200.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-28192 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Partially Closed Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The executive session of this meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2015, will include discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishment proceedings involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade; the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, the executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The open session of the meeting will be held on December 7, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The executive session held from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be the closed portion of the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. The meeting will be handicap accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Eric Madonia, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, (410) 293-1503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2015, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c)(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.

    (Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b) Dated: October 29, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28186 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Meetings FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

    80 FR 62524 (October 16, 2015).

    PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING:

    9 a.m.-12:15 p.m., November 10, 2015.

    CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

    On page 62524, in the second column, change the DATES caption to read: “Time and Date of Meeting: 1 p.m.-4:15 p.m., November 23, 2015.” Additionally, in the second column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION caption, at the 11th line of the “Matters to be Considered” section, after the word “entitled,” remove the phrase “DNFSB Work Plans and Staffing Plan for Fiscal Year 2016” and add in its place the phrase “DNFSB Office of the Technical Director Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan”.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28288 Filed 11-3-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #3

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2985-017; ER10-3049-018; ER10-3051-018.

    Applicants: Champion Energy Marketing LLC, Champion Energy Services, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Champion Utilities.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5444.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-90-000.

    Applicants: Golden Hills Interconnection, LLC.

    Description: Clarification to October 19, 2015 Golden Hills Interconnection, LLC tariff filing under ER16-90.

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5399.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-131-000.

    Applicants: Heber Geothermal Company LLC.

    Description: Amendment to October 21, 2015 Heber Geothermal Company LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5307.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-164-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: WPL Changes in Depreciation & Amortization for Wholesale Production Service to be effective 12/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5433.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-165-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Clarify Treatment of Point-To-Point Transmission Service Revenues to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5442.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-166-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-29_EAI-AECC Amended JPZ Agreement to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5445.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-167-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Part 1 of Two-Part Filing of Demand Response Changes to be effective 12/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5473.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-168-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing re: physical withholding & fuel costs in reference levels to be effective 12/28/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5482.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-169-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Part 2 of Two-Part Filing of Demand Response Changes to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5495.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28207 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-29-000] Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Transco to Charleston Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Transco to Charleston Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC (DCG) in Aiken, Charleston, Dillon, Dorchester, Greenwood, Laurens, Newberry, and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 30, 2015.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on September 2, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-29-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF15-29-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping meetings its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows.

    Date and time Location Wednesday, November 18, 2015, 4-7 p.m Spartanburg Community College—Tyger River Campus, 1875 East Main Street, Duncan, SC 29334. Thursday, November 19, 2015, 4-7 p.m Family YMCA of Greater Laurens, 410 Anderson Drive, Laurens, SC 29360.

    You may attend at any time during the scoping meeting. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff, but you will be provided information about the FERC process. Commission staff will be available to take verbal comments. Representatives of DCG will be present to answer questions about its planned project.

    Comments will be recorded by a stenographer and transcripts will be placed into the project docket and made available for public viewing on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 7 “Additional Information” for instructions on using eLibrary). We believe it is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments, a time limit of 3 to 5 minutes may be implemented for each commenter to ensure all those wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so within the designated meeting time. Time limits will be strictly enforced if they are implemented.

    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    The planned project would provide 80,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day of firm transportation service that has been fully subscribed by three customers.

    The Transco to Charleston Project would consist of the following facilities:

    • Approximately 55 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in Spartanburg, Laurens, Newberry, and Greenwood Counties (Moore to Chappells pipeline);

    • approximately 5 miles of 4-inch-diameter pipeline in Dillon County (Dillon pipeline);

    • installation of two new 1,400-horsepower (hp) compressor units at the existing Moore Compressor Station in Spartanburg County;

    • construction of a new 3,150-hp compressor station (Dorchester Compressor Station) in Dorchester County;

    • conversion of an existing 1,050-hp compressor unit from standby to base load at the existing Southern Compressor Station in Aiken County;

    • upgrades to the existing Charleston Town Border Station in Charleston County; and

    • associated pipeline support facilities (metering and regulating stations, launcher and receiver assemblies, valves, and pipeline interconnects).

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 781.6 acres of land for the pipelines and 28.9 acres of land for the aboveground facilities. Following construction, DCG would maintain about 488.0 acres for permanent operation of the project's pipelines and 12.9 acres for the aboveground facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 6 percent of the planned Moore to Chappells pipeline route and 28 percent of the Dillon pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once DCG files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-29). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28204 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13135-004] City of Watervliet; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: License for Major Project-Existing Dam.

    b. Project No.: P-13135-004.

    c. Date filed: August 26, 2014.

    d. Applicant: City of Watervliet, New York.

    e. Name of Project: Delta Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Mohawk River, in the City of Rome, Oneida County, NY. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Michael P. Manning, Mayor, City of Watervliet, City Hall, Watervliet, NY 12189, Phone: 518-270-3815, Email: [email protected]; or Mark Gleason, General Manager, City of Watervliet, City Hall, Watervliet, NY 12189, Phone: 518-270-3800x122, Email: [email protected]; or Wendy Jo Carey, P.E., Albany Engineering Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205, Phone: 518-456-7712x401, Email: [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett, Phone: (202) 502-8393, Email: [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-13135-004.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 1,016-foot-long, 76-foot-high Delta dam, owned by the New York State Canal Corporation; (2) an existing impoundment having a surface area of 2,700 acres and a storage capacity of 63,200 acre-feet at the spillway crest elevation of 551.37 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988; (3) a new 40-foot-diameter cylindrical powerhouse containing one turbine-generator unit with a total installed capacity of 7.4 megawatts; (4) a new 15,000-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt underground transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would generate about 14,100 megawatt-hours of electricity annually.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online athttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.

    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.

    Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.

    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28213 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-21-000.

    Applicants: Sandstone Solar LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Sandstone Solar LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5611.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2267-001.

    Applicants: Chevron Power Holdings Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Chevron Power Holdings Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-167-001.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Part 2 of Two-Part Filing of Demand Response Changes to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-170-000.

    Applicants: Champion Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5523.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-171-000.

    Applicants: Champion Energy Marketing LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Tariff Revisions to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5527.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-172-000.

    Applicants: Champion Energy, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5533.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-173-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Co.

    Description: Compliance filing: Corrections to OATT Table of Contents to be effective 12/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5575.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-174-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 RSBAA Update Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-175-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 TRBAA Update Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-176-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCE 2016 ETC Reliability Service Rate Update to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-177-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: RCID NITSA Amendment OATT SA No. 147 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-178-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_Joint Dispatch Svc-Rnd 2-Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-179-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Transmission Service Agreement, Rate Schedule 512 of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-180-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_JDA to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-181-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company (Minnesota), Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Facilities Agreement, Rate Schedule 512 of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-182-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Ridge II, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 12/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-183-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_SA 1375 ATC-White Pine 3rd Rev GIA (J143) to be effective 10/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-184-000.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DTE Electric Reactive Revenue for Dean Facility to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-185-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205 flng—Increase elgblty spcl mrkt rls gnrtors srvng NYC steam dstrbtn systm to be effective 12/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-186-000; ER16-187-000; ER16-188-000; ER16-189-000; ER16-190-000; ER16-191-000.

    Applicants: Coalinga Cogeneration Company, Kern River Cogeneration Company, Mid-Set Cogeneration Company, Salinas River Cogeneration Company, Sargent Canyon Cogeneration Company, Sycamore Cogeneration Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariffs filed by Chevron Power Holdings Inc. on behalf of the Chevron Partnerships.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-192-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Oct. 30, 2015 Membership Filing to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-193-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan Rev 2 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    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 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28208 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Revised Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13404-002 Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project Project No. 13405-002 Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project Project No. 13406-002 Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project Project No. 13407-002 Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project Project No. 13408-002 Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project Project No. 13411-002

    On September 10, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued notice of a proposed restricted service list for the preparation of a programmatic agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at each of the following proposed projects: (1) Beverly Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13404; (2) Devola Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13405; (3) Malta Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13406; (4) Lowell Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13407; (5) Philo Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13408; (6) and Rokeby Lock & Dam Water Power Project No. 13411. Rule 2010(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010(d)(1) (2014), provides for the establishment of such a list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency. Under Rule 385.2010(d)(4), persons on the official service list are to be given notice of any proposal to establish a restricted service list and an opportunity to show why they should also be included on the restricted service list or why a restricted service list should not be established.

    On October 29, 2015, Valincia Darby, Regional Environmental Protection Assistant for the Department of the Interior, requested to be added to the restricted service list and be included as a consulting party in the section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act consultation process so that she may stay apprised and provide project input.

    Under Rule 385.2010(d)(2), any restricted service list will contain the names of each person on the official service list, or the person's representative, who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, is an active participant with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established. Valincia Darby has identified an interest in issues relating to the management of historic properties at the Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project, Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project, and Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project. Therefore, she and her representatives will be added to the restrictive service list.

    Accordingly, the restricted service list issued on September 10, 2015, for Projects Nos. 13404, 13405, 12406, 13407, 13408, and 13411 is revised to add the following person: Valincia Darby or representative, Regional Environmental Protection Assistant, Department of the Interior, OEPC, 200 Chestnut Street, Rm 244, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28202 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Teleconference Project Nos. Clean River Power MR-3, LLC P-13404-002 Clean River Power MR-1, LLC P-13405-002 Clean River Power MR-5, LLC P-13406-002 Clean River Power MR-2, LLC P-13407-002 Clean River Power MR-7, LLC P-13408-002 Clean River Power MR-6, LLC P-13411-002

    a. Project Names and Numbers: Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13404, Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13405, Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13406, Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13407, Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13408, and Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13411 (Muskingum River Projects).

    b. Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

    c. FERC Contact: Aaron Liberty, Phone: (202) 502-6862, Email: [email protected]

    d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) responses to Commission staff's determinations of effect for federally listed species described in the Multi-Project Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License, for the proposed Muskingum River Projects, issued on August 27, 2015, and Commission staff's letter to the FWS, issued on October 16, 2015.

    e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call Aaron Liberty at (202) 502-6862 by Tuesday, November 12, 2015, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28203 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1630-005; ER15-1375-001; ER15-2602-001; ER10-1967-008; ER10-1968-008; ER10-2720-010; ER11-4428-010; ER12-1880-009; ER12-895-008; ER14-21-004; ER11-4462-013; ER10-1970-008; ER11-4677-008; ER10-1972-008; ER10-1971-022; ER10-1973-007; ER10-1951-010; ER10-1974-017; ER10-1975-018; ER12-2444-007; ER10-1976-007; ER10-1983-008; ER10-1984-008; ER14-2710-005; ER15-58-003; ER11-2365-007; ER10-1985-007; ER10-1986-008, ER12-676-007, ER13-2461-003; ER11-2192-008; ER14-2708-006; ER14-2709-005; ER15-30-003; ER15-2243-001; ER15-1016-001; ER10-1989-007; ER15-2134-001; ER10-1990-008; ER13-2474-004; ER10-1991-008; ER12-1660-008; ER13-2458-002; ER11-4678-008, ER10-1993-008; ER10-1994-007; ER10-2078-009, ER10-1995-007; ER12-631-008.

    Applicants: Mantua Creek Solar, LLC, McCoy Solar, LLC, Meyersdale Storage, LLC, Meyersdale Windpower LLC, Mill Run Windpower, LLC, Minco Wind, LLC, Minco Wind II, LLC, Minco Wind III, LLC, Minco Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Mountain View Solar, LLC, NEPM II, LLC, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership, North Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership, North Sky River Energy, LLC, Northern Colorado Wind Energy, LLC, Osceola Windpower, LLC, Osceola Windpower II, LLC, Palo Duro Wind Energy, LLC, Palo Duro Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Paradise Solar Urban Renewal, L.L.C., Peetz Table Wind Energy, LLC, Pennsylvania Windfarms, Inc., Perrin Ranch Wind, LLC, Pheasant Run Wind, LLC, Red Mesa Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind II, LLC, Seiling Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Silver State Solar Power South, LLC, Shafter Solar, LLC, Sky River LLC Sky River Asset Holdings, LLC, Somerset Windpower, LLC, Steele Flats Wind Project, LLC, Story Wind, LLC, Tuscola Bay Wind, LLC, Tuscola Wind II, LLC, Vasco Winds, LLC, Waymart Wind Farm, L.P., Wessington Wind Energy Center, LLC, White Oak Energy LLC, Wilton Wind II, LLC, Windpower Partners 1993, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the NextEra Energy Companies [Part 2 of 2].

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5392.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-61-001.

    Applicants: Seville Solar One LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Application to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5356.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-63-001.

    Applicants: Seville Solar Two, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Application to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5359.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-64-001.

    Applicants: Tallbear Seville LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Application to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5360.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-141-001.

    Applicants: Conetoe II Solar, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Application to be effective 10/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5362.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-162-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Petition of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. for Tariff Waiver.

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5409.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-163-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Update Definitions for Transmission Provider and Tariff to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5289.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-3-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC, Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC, Buckeye Wind Energy LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Grays Harbor Energy LLC, Hardee Power Partners Limited, Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC, Invenergy Nelson LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spindle Hill Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-3-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., Dominion Retail, Inc., Fairless Energy, LLC, NedPower Mt. Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, RE Columbia Two LLC, RE Camelot LLC, Selmer Farm, LLC, Mulberry Farm, LLC, CID Solar, LLC, Cottonwood Solar, LLC, Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC, Pavant Solar LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Dominion Resources Services, Inc. on behalf of the Dominion Affiliates.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5283.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28206 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-7-000] City of Osceola, Arkansas v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc., Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 29, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(h) and section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, City of Osceola Arkansas (Osceola or Complainant) filed a complaint against Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) and Entergy Services, Inc. (collectively Respondents). In the Complaint Osceola seeks an order and asserts that the Commission should compel Respondent to adhere to the rates, terms and conditions of the Power Coordination, Interchange and Transmission Service Agreement between EAI and Osceola. Complainant contends that EAI charged Osceola in violation of that agreement and in violation of the filed rate doctrine, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of corporate officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 30, 2015.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28210 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1831-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Dominion's compliance filing revising H-16A methodology of calculating ADIT to be effective 5/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5284.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-411-003.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Rate Schedule No. 274—Planning Participation Agreement to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5275.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-680-001.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Compliance filing: Idaho Power Asset Exchange Compliance Filing (Agreements) to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5310.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-681-001.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Compliance filing: Idaho Power Asset Exchange Compliance Filing (Cancellations) to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5312.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-683-001.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Legacy Agreements Replacement Transaction—Closing Compliance Filing to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5324.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-686-001.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Legacy Transaction Cancellations—Closing Compliance Filing to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5386.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1133-001.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: PAC LTF BORA-LGBP Service Agreement—Closing Compliance Filing to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5394.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1595-001.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: PAC LTF BORA-ENPR/LGBP Service Agreements—Closing Compliance Filing to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5397.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-194-000.

    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Change to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-195-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_NSP-StJms-Tran to Load-592-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-196-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2804 Basin and WAPA-UGPR Meter Agent Agreement Cancellation to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5269.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-197-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_MISO TOs Attachment O ADIT Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5274.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-198-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 3118 Northern States Power and Basin Electric Meter Agent Agreement to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-199-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 274—Planning Participation Agreement to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5279.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-200-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Rate Filing for MISO to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5280.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-201-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Rate for Madison (PJM) to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5285.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-202-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 347—Tohono O'odham to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5290.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-203-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-DEP PTP TSA to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5296.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-204-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Formula Rate to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-205-000.

    Applicants: DATC Path 15, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Appendix I 2016 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5319.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-206-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_SA 2862 ITC Midwest-WPL Facilities Service Agreement (G870) to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5345.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-207-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Annual RMR Section 205 Filing and RMR Schedule F Informational Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5346.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-208-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., International Transmission Company, ITC Midwest LLC, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-30_ITC, ITCM, METC Attachment O Revisions to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5396.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-209-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Central Power Electric Cooperative Formula Rate to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5424.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-210-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: IPC-PAC JOOA Amendment and Exhibit G to be effective 10/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5425.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.

    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 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28209 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference October 29, 2015. Docket Nos. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C ER15-1344-001,
  • ER15-1344-002
  • PJM Interconnection, L.L.C ER15-1387-001 Potomac Electric Power Company

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on October 8, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff will hold a technical conference on November 12, 2015, at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the technical conference is to understand PJM's application of its Order No. 1000-compliant 1 transmission planning process to local transmission facilities, including, but not limited to, the process PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners use to identify local transmission needs and to solicit proposed solutions to identified local transmission needs (such as opening proposal windows),2 and the process PJM uses to determine whether a transmission solution to an identified local transmission need should be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission solution.

    1Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

    2 As discussed in the order establishing the technical conference, Dominion Resources Services' revisions to its individual transmission planning criteria will not be discussed at the technical conference. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 152 FERC ¶ 61,197, at P15 (2015).

    The Commission's orders on PJM's compliance with the local transmission planning requirements of both Order No. 890 3 and Order No. 1000 and the issue of how PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners conduct local transmission planning will serve to frame this conference. Participants should review and be prepared to discuss the issue of local transmission planning in the context of these previous orders.4

    3Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009), order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009).

    4See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 123 FERC ¶ 61,163, at PP 121-143 (2008); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 127 FERC ¶ 61,166, at PP 21-31 (2009); and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 130 FERC ¶ 61,167, at PP 10-16 (2010) (addressing the local transmission planning requirements of Order No. 890) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 FERC ¶ 61,214, at PP 121-123 (2013); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 147 FERC ¶ 61,128, at PP 72-83 (2014); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 150 FERC ¶ 61,038, at PP 18-46 (2015); and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,250, at PP 12-22 (2015) (addressing the local transmission planning requirements of Order No. 1000).

    In its Order No. 1000 compliance proceedings, PJM stated that individual PJM Transmission Owners do not conduct separate local transmission planning and that local transmission and regional transmission planning are fully integrated in PJM's regional transmission planning process.5 PJM also stated that, “through its established regional transmission planning process that fully merges local and regional planning, PJM evaluates both local and regional planning criteria.” 6 PJM explained that transmission owners in the PJM region bring their current local planning information, including all criteria, assumptions, and models used, to the Subregional RTEP Committees,7 where it is reviewed by the Subregional RTEP Committees to develop and finalize Local Plans that are coordinated with the PJM regional transmission planning process.8 PJM stated that Local Plans are a product of the Subregional RTEP Committees rather than independently existing local plans presented by the transmission owner to the Subregional RTEP Committees for review. Also, PJM explained that it is the Subregional RTEP Committees, rather than an individual transmission owner, that incorporates feedback into the Local Plan.9 In addition, PJM stated, Local Plans that the Subregional RTEP Committees develop include Supplemental Projects 10 as identified by the PJM Transmission Owners within their zones, and Subregional RTEP Projects 11 developed to comply with all applicable reliability criteria, including the local transmission owners planning criteria, or based on market efficiency analysis and in consideration of Public Policy Requirements.12

    5See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 147 FERC ¶ 61,128, at P 73 (2014) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 150 FERC ¶ 61,038, at P 34 (2015).

    6 PJM July 22, 2013 Second Round Order No. 1000 Regional Compliance Filing Docket No. ER13-198-002, at 17 (emphasis in original). See also Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, § 1.2(e) (“The Regional Transmission Expansion Plan planning criteria shall include, Office of the Interconnection planning procedures, NERC Reliability Standards, Regional Entity reliability principles and standards, and the individual Transmission Owner FERC filed planning criteria as filed in FERC Form No. 715.”).

    7See PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, § 1.3 (e) (Establishment of Committees).

    8 PJM July 14, 2014 Third Round Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER13-198-004 at 4 and PJM Third Round Regional Compliance Order, 150 FERC ¶ 61,038 at P 20.

    9 PJM Third Round Regional Compliance Order, 150 FERC ¶ 61,038 at PP 34, 36-37. In addition, PJM stated that the Subregional RTEP Committees have served as an open stakeholder forum through which transmission owners integrate their local transmission planning under PJM's open and coordinated regional transmission planning process for all transmission facilities below 230 kV. PJM July 14, 2014 Third Round Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER13-198-004 at 4.

    10 A Supplemental Project is a transmission expansion or enhancement that is not required for compliance with PJM's criteria for system reliability, operational performance or economic criteria, pursuant to a determination by the Office of the Interconnection. PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Definitions (S-T), § 1.42A.02 (Supplemental Project). PJM has also stated that the Supplemental Project category of transmission projects was created to allow PJM to evaluate local transmission owner planning standards and criteria to determine if local reinforcements are needed to optimally meet the local transmission owner planning criteria and to determine whether reinforcements may be categorized as PJM RTEP baseline or as Supplemental Projects. PJM Oct. 25, 2012 First Order No. 1000 Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER12-198-000, at n.129.

    11 “Subregional RTEP Project” shall mean a transmission expansion or enhancement rated below 230 kV which is required for compliance with the following PJM criteria: System reliability, operational performance or economic criteria, pursuant to a determination by the Office of the Interconnection. PJM Operating Agreement, § 1.42A.01 (Subregional RTEP Project).

    12 PJM Operating Agreement, (Local Plan) § 1.18A.

    Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) and the PJM Transmission Owners also addressed the PJM local transmission planning process in their rehearing requests submitted in Docket No. ER15-1387-001 proceeding. Dayton stated that local transmission projects are included as part of PJM's annual regional transmission planning process, but not because PJM has had any significant role in their design or planning, as local transmission projects are designed and developed by the local transmission owner.13 Dayton stated that transmission local owner planning criteria and transmission plans are presented at the Subregional RTEP Committees and at the PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee, but those presentations are made as informational items and are not presented for approval by those committees.14 Dayton also stated that the only relationship between local transmission projects and the PJM regional transmission planning process is to inform PJM on what is being built by the local transmission owner under the transmission owner local planning criteria in order to model flows and assess system reliability. Dayton stated therefore, that PJM does not select the local transmission project as the most cost-effective way to meet the transmission owner local planning criteria for cost allocation purposes, but rather the project is proposed to PJM by the local transmission owner. Dayton stated it acknowledges that the local transmission project is reviewed by committees within PJM and ultimately by the PJM Board, but stated that such review is not for purposes of determining whether the project is needed regionally or provides some regional reliability benefit.15

    13 Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 5.

    14 Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 2-3.

    15 Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 4 (emphasis in original).

    PJM Transmission Owners stated that all transmission projects proposed and considered in the PJM regional transmission plan are not necessarily selected for the purposes of regional cost allocation and are included in the RTEP to address various issues and needs, some local and some regional.16 The PJM Transmission Owners stated that local transmission projects are included in the PJM regional transmission plan only to ensure they are considered in the overall PJM planning process for purposes of determining if the projects modify power flows and create reliability concerns, and whether the criteria driving a local transmission project are better addressed through a project that is more regional in scope.17

    16 PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 11-12.

    17 PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 10.

    Given the background provided herein, participants should be prepared to discuss the following:

    1. The process through which local transmission planning is conducted, from the identification of transmission needs through the selection of transmission projects.

    a. How do PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners define the terms transmission owner local planning criteria, local transmission need, and local transmission project?

    b. How and when are local transmission needs identified? How and when can stakeholders comment on the identified local transmission needs?

    c. How do the local transmission planning and regional transmission planning processes in PJM interact? Are there two distinct, separate processes, or are they one in the same? If there are two separate processes, at what point are the transmission owner local planning criteria and/or transmission project proposals to address those local planning criteria incorporated into the regional transmission planning process? How does PJM decide which local transmission needs are integrated into the PJM regional transmission planning process?

    d. What is the relationship between the transmission needs proposed in the Subregional RTEP Committees' Local Plans with the transmission needs incorporated into the regional transmission planning process?

    e. What method is used to disclose to stakeholders the criteria, assumptions, and data that underlie local transmission planning? How and when can stakeholders provide input and offer suggested transmission projects to address local transmission needs?

    f. How and when do individual PJM Transmission Owners identify transmission projects meant to address local transmission needs?

    g. What analysis does PJM perform on transmission projects proposed by PJM Transmission Owners and proposed by stakeholders to address local transmission needs?

    h. What is PJM's role in developing, evaluating, and selecting transmission project proposals to address transmission owner local planning criteria? What are the PJM Transmission Owners' roles in developing, evaluating, and selecting these proposals?

    i. Is the process through which PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners develop, evaluate, and select transmission project proposals to address transmission owner local planning criteria different from the process through which they develop, evaluate, and select transmission project proposals to address NERC or Regional Entity reliability standards?

    j. What defined categories of transmission facilities are currently included in a PJM RTEP? Are there any defined categories of transmission projects currently included in the PJM RTEP that PJM does not consider to be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation? If so, are these transmission projects eligible to use PJM's regional cost allocation method?

    2. The process through which Supplemental Projects become transmission projects eligible for selection in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.

    a. If a Supplemental Project is transitioned into a Required Transmission Enhancement that is eligible for regional cost allocation in PJM's RTEP, does it undergo the same analysis as a transmission project first proposed as a Subregional RTEP Project?

    b. How are Supplemental Projects distinguished from transmission projects that address transmission owner local planning criteria?

    3. The proposal window process for transmission project proposals intended to address transmission owner local planning criteria.

    a. Except for Immediate-need Reliability Projects, does PJM currently open proposal windows for all transmission needs identified in its regional transmission planning process, including those needs that arise as a result of local transmission needs and transmission owner local planning criteria?

    b. If PJM does not currently open proposal windows for all transmission needs identified in PJM's regional transmission planning process, how does PJM determine whether to open a proposal window for a given transmission need?

    c. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes an upgrade to its existing transmission facilities to address a local transmission need, does PJM open a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address the local transmission need that would be addressed by the upgrade?

    d. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes a new 500 kV transmission facility to address a local transmission need, does PJM currently open a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address the local transmission need that would be addressed by PJM Transmission Owner's proposed new 500 kV transmission facility?

    The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is open to the public. Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site (https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-10-15-form.asp) is encouraged but not required. The conference will include discussions responding to Commission staff's questions led by PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners, with opportunity for questions and comments during those discussions for participating parties. The specific agenda and procedures to be followed at the conference will be announced by staff at the opening of the conference.

    The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there will be a free audio cast of the conference. Anyone wishing to listen to the meeting should send an email to Sarah McKinley at [email protected] by November 3, 2015, to request call-in information. Please reference “call information for ER15-1344/1387 technical conference” in the subject line of the email. The call-in information will be provided prior to the meeting. Persons listening to the technical conference may participate by submitting questions, either prior to or during the technical conference, by emailing [email protected]

    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.

    Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider post-technical conference comments submitted on or before December 10, 2015. Reply comments will be due on or before January 7, 2016. The written comments will be included in the formal record of the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will form the basis for further Commission action.

    For more information about this technical conference, please contact Katherine Scott, 202-502-6495, [email protected], regarding Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001 and ER15-1344-002; Nicole Buell, 202-502-6846, [email protected], regarding Docket No. ER15-1387-001; or Sarah McKinley, 202-502-8368, [email protected], regarding logistical issues.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28157 Filed 11-4-15; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-14-000.

    Applicants: Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1883-001; ER15-1418-001; ER10-1836-008; ER10-2005-008; ER11-26-008; ER10-1838-008; ER10-2551-007; ER10-1915-007; ER12-569-009; ER15-1925-001; ER10-1841-008; ER13-712-009; ER10-1843-008; ER10-1844-008; ER10-1845-008; ER10-1846-007; ER13-1991-005; ER13-1992-005; ER10-1847-007; ER10-1849-008; ER11-2037-008; ER13-752-007; ER12-2227-008; ER10-1851-006; ER10-1852-012; ER10-1855-007; ER10-1856-007; ER10-1857-007; ER10-1887-008; ER10-1890-007; ER10-1897-008; ER10-1899-008; ER10-1902-008; ER10-1903-008; ER11-2160-007; ER10-1905-008; ER10-1906-006; ER10-1907-008; ER10-1918-008; ER10-1920-010; ER10-1925-008; ER10-1927-008; ER10-1928-010; ER11-2642-008; ER10-1930-006; ER10-1931-007; ER10-1932-007; ER10-1935-007; ER10-1950-008; ER13-2112-003; ER15-2101-002; ER10-1952-008; ER15-2601-001; ER11-3635-007; ER10-2006-009; ER10-1961-008; ER12-1228-010; ER10-1962-007; ER10-1963-007; ER10-1964-008; ER10-1965-008; ER12-2226-006; ER12-2225-006; ER14-2138-003; ER10-1966-007; ER14-2707-005.

    Applicants: Adelanto Solar, LLC, Adelanto Solar II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind III, LLC, Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC, Baldwin Wind, LLC, Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, Blackwell Wind, LLC, Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC, Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Cimarron Wind Energy, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind III, LLC, Day County Wind, LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Diablo Winds, LLC, Elk City Wind, LLC, Elk City II Wind, LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC, Ensign Wind, LLC, ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P., Florida Power & Light Company, FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cabazon Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cape, LLC, FPL Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green Power Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Hancock County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P., FPL Energy MH50 L.P., FPL Energy Montezuma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Mower County, LLC, FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Oklahoma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Sooner Wind, LLC, FPL Energy South Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc., FPL Energy Vansycle, L.L.C, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC, Garden Wind, LLC, Genesis Solar, LLC, Golden West Power Partners, LLC, Gray County Wind Energy, LLC, Green Mountain Storage, LLC, Hatch Solar Energy Center I, LLC, Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC, High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC, High Majestic Wind II, LLC, High Winds, LLC, Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC, Langdon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind II, LLC, Limon Wind III, LLC, Logan Wind Energy LLC, Mammoth Plains Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the NextEra Energy Companies [Part 1 of 2].

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5364.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-143-001.

    Applicants: Citizens Sunrise Transmission LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to TRBAA Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5323.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-158-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment AE Regarding Pricing in the Context of Ramp Constraints to be effective 12/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20151028-5357.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-159-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Removal of NEPOOL Review Board to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-160-000.

    Applicants: New-Indy Ontario LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR to be effective1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-161-000.

    Applicants: New-Indy Oxnard LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR to be effective1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20151029-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28205 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-12-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725 [Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards]. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 50846, 8/21/2015) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-725 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0225 or collection number (FERC-725), should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-0710.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-12-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-725, Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards.

    OMB Control No.:1902-0225.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The FERC-725 information collection contains the following information collection elements:

    Self Assessment and Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Application: The Commission requires the ERO to submit to FERC a performance assessment report every five years. The next assessment is due in 2019. Each Regional Entity submits a performance assessment report to the ERO. Submitting an application to become an ERO is also part of this collection.1

    1 The Commission does not expect any new ERO applications to be submitted in the next five years and is not including any burden for this requirement in the burden estimate. FERC still seeks to renew the regulations pertaining to a new ERO application under this renewal but is expecting the burden to be zero for the foreseeable future. 18 CFR 39.3 contains the regulation pertaining to ERO applications.

    Reliability Assessments: 18 CFR 39.11 requires the ERO to assess the reliability and adequacy of the Bulk-Power System in North America. Subsequently, the ERO must report to the Commission on its findings. Regional entities perform similar assessments within individual regions. Currently, the ERO submits to FERC three assessments each year: Long term, winter, and summer. In addition, NERC also submits various other assessments as needed.

    Reliability Standards Development: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the ERO is charged with developing Reliability Standards. Regional Entities may also develop regional specific standards. Reliability Standards are one of the three principal mechanisms provided to FERC to ensure reliability on the Bulk-Power System.

    Reliability Compliance: Reliability Standards are mandatory and enforceable upon approval by FERC. In addition to the specific information collection requirements contained in each Reliability Standard (cleared under other information collections), there are general compliance, monitoring and enforcement information collection requirements imposed on applicable entities. Audits, spot checks, self-certifications, exception data submittals, violation reporting, and mitigation plan confirmation are included in this area.

    Stakeholder Survey: The ERO uses a stakeholder survey to solicit feedback from registered entities 2 in preparation for its three year and five year self-performance assessment. The Commission assumes that the ERO will perform another survey prior to the 2019 self- assessment.

    2 A “registered entity” is an entity that is registered with the ERO. All Bulk-Power System owners, operators and users are required to register with the ERO. Registration is the basis for determining the Reliability Standards with which an entity must comply. See http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=3%7C25 for more details.

    Other Reporting: This category refers to all other reporting requirements imposed on the ERO or regional entities in order to comply with the Commission's regulations. For example, FERC may require NERC to submit a special reliability assessment. This category is mentioned to capture these types of one-time filings required of NERC or the Regions.

    The Commission implements its responsibilities through 18 CFR part 39. Without the FERC-725 information, the Commission, ERO, and Regional Entities will not have the data needed to determine whether sufficient and appropriate measures are being taken to ensure the reliability of the nation's electric grid.

    Type of Respondents: ERO and regional entities.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:3 The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

    3 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    4 In all instances below where the number of responses per respondent is “1” the Commission acknowledges that actual number of responses varies and cannot be estimated clearly.

    5 Uses the weighted hourly average wage (salary plus benefits) for electrical engineers and lawyers obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (data for May 2014, posted on 4/1/2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): $91.82/hour. The weighted average used the following calculation: [(0.20) * ($129.87) + (0.60) * ($66.45) + (0.2) * ($39.18)] = $73.68. $129.87/hour is the wage for lawyers. $66.45/hour is the wage for engineers. $39.17/hour is the wage for office and administrative support. Occupation codes are 23-0000, 17-2071, and 43-0000 respectively.

    FERC-725: Certification of the ERO; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards Type of respondent Type of reporting
  • requirement
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average burden
  • hours and cost
  • per response
  • Estimated total annual burden and cost
    (A) (B) 4 (A) × (B) = (C) (D) (C) × (D) Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) 1 Self-Assessment 1 .2 .2 7,800
  • 5 $574,704
  • 1,560
  • $114,941
  • Reliability Assessments 5.5 5.5 15,600
  • 5 $1,149,408
  • 85,800
  • $6,321,744
  • Reliability Compliance 2 2 12,480
  • 5 $919,526
  • 24,960
  • $1,839,053
  • Standards Development 1 1 28,080
  • 6 $1,865,916
  • 28,080
  • $1,865,916
  • Other Reporting 1 1 2,080
  • 7 $270,130
  • 2,080
  • $270,130
  • Regional Entities Self-Assessment 8 .2 1.6 16,640
  • 6 $1,105,728
  • 26,624
  • $1,769,164
  • Reliability Assessments 1 8 15,600
  • 6 $1,036,620
  • 124,800
  • $8,292,960
  • Reliability Compliance 1 8 40,560
  • 5 $2,988,461
  • 324,480
  • $23,907,688
  • Standards Development 1 8 2,340
  • 6 $155,493
  • 18,720
  • $1,243,944
  • Other Reporting 1 8 1,040
  • 7 $135,065
  • 8,320
  • $1,080,520
  • Registered Entities Stakeholder Survey estimated 1,446 .2 289 8
  • 5 $589
  • 2,312
  • $170,221
  • Reliability Compliance 1 1,446 400
  • 5 $29,472
  • 578,400
  • $42,616,512
  • Subtotals: ERO * 142,480 Regional N/A * 502,944 Registered * 580,712 Total Burden Hours 1,226,136 * Total Cost $89,492,791 * hrs.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    6 Uses the hourly average wage (salary plus benefits) for electrical engineers obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (data for May 2014, posted on 4/1/2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): $66.45/hour. Occupation code is 17-2071.

    7 Uses the hourly average wage (salary plus benefits) for lawyers obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (data for May 2014, posted on 4/1/2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): $129.87/hour. Occupation code is 23-0000.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28211 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12962-002] Newburgh Hydro, LLC; Notice of Technical Conference

    On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Commission staff will hold a technical conference to discuss the concerns of Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa Power Generating Inc. related to navigation at Newburgh Hydro, LLC's proposed Newburgh Hydroelectric Project No. 12962.

    The technical conference will begin at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission headquarters building located at 888 1st Street NE., Washington, DC, and will include teleconference capabilities.

    All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no transcript of the conference, but a summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project record. If you are interested in participating in the meeting you must contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-6512 or [email protected] by November 12, 2015 to receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28212 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333; FRL-9936-53-OAR] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection request renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document announces that Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, the EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.

    Public Hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by November 12, 2015. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on November 20, 2015, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide further information about the hearing on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html if a hearing is requested.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333 by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0831 or RIN No. 2060-AS37 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 566-9744.

    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation of the Docket Center, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    For additional information on submitting comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address: [email protected] For technical information, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html. To submit a question, select Help Center, followed by “Contact Us.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additional Information on Submitting Comments: To expedite review of your comments by agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email address: [email protected]

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 2012-0333 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program; EPA ICR. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online athttp://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.

    Should you choose to submit information that you claim to be CBI, clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For information that you claim to be CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 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 marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html.

    How can I access the docket and/or submit comments? The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

    What information is EPA particularly interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, the EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that the EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

    What should I consider when I prepare my comments for the EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.

    7. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

    What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to? [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333.]

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are suppliers of certain products that will emit GHG when released, combusted, or oxidized, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, including aircraft engine manufacturers; facilities in certain industrial categories that emit greenhouse gases; and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) per year.

    Title: Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2300.17

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31, 2016. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Pub. L. 110-161) and under authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA finalized the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (GHG Reporting Rule) (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). The GHG Reporting Rule, which became effective on December 29, 2009, establishes reporting requirements for certain large facilities and suppliers. It does not require control of greenhouse gases. Instead, it requires that sources emitting above certain threshold levels of (CO2 e) monitor and report emissions.

    Subsequent rules have promulgated requirements for additional facilities, suppliers, and mobile sources; provided clarification and corrections to existing requirements; finalized confidentiality business information (CBI) determinations, amended recordkeeping requirements, and implemented an alternative verification approach. Collectively, the GHG Reporting Rule and its associated rulemakings are referred to as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).

    The purpose for this ICR is to renew and revise the GHG Reporting Rule ICR to update and consolidate the burdens and costs imposed by all of the current ICRs under the GHGRP.

    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.24 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the EPA's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

    1. Estimated total number of potential respondents: 9,899.

    2. Frequency of response: Annual, quarterly.

    3. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 72.

    4. Estimated total annual burden hours: 903,871 hours. This includes estimated total respondent hours of 878,911 hours and estimated total EPA hours of 24,960 hours.

    5. Estimated total annual costs: $113,837,441. This includes an estimated cost of $38,477,161 for capital investment as well as maintenance and operational costs, an estimated respondent burden cost of $63,360,249, and an estimated EPA cost of $12,000,030.

    Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval? There is a decrease of 102,121 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the last ICR renewal. This change in burden reflects an adjustment in the number of respondents from projected to actual, an adjustment of labor rates and capital costs to reflect 2013 dollars, a re-evaluation of the activities and costs associated with Subparts W and RR, and the addition of new segments and new reporters under Subpart W.

    What is the next step in the process for this ICR? The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 28, 2015. Paul M. Gunning, Director, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28275 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0667; FRL-9936-59-OW] National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011 Draft Report AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft report on the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA 2011) and opens a 30-day public review and comment period on the draft report. The NWCA 2011 is the first national assessment of the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands. The NWCA 2011 draft report describes the results of a nationwide probabilistic survey of wetlands conducted in the spring and summer of 2011 by EPA and its state and tribal partners. Results are based on ecological data collected at over 1,000 sites using standardized protocols and include estimates of wetland area in “good,” “fair,” and “poor” condition, nationally and by ecoregion, for a biological indicator based on plants and key wetland stressors. The report also provides information on the design and implementation of the scientific assessment, possible implications, and future actions. This report completes the first series of probability-based surveys conducted under EPA's National Aquatic Resource Surveys program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0667, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregg Serenbetz, Wetlands Division, Office of Water (4502T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1253; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Wetlands is the first report assessing the condition of the nation's wetlands and the fifth report in a series of National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS), a national-scale monitoring program designed to produce statistically-valid assessments that answer critical questions about the condition of waters in the United States.

    The key goals of the NWCA are to (1) describe the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands and stressors commonly associated with poor condition; (2) collaborate with states and tribes in developing complementary monitoring tools, analytical approaches, and data management technology to aid wetland protection and restoration programs; and (3) advance the science of wetland monitoring and assessment to support wetland management needs. EPA began planning activities for the NWCA in 2006 and engaged with a broad group of stakeholders including state environmental and natural resource agencies, tribes, federal agencies, academia, and other organizations to help inform different aspects of the assessment.

    Both tidal and nontidal wetlands were targeted for sampling. To select wetland sites for sampling, EPA used the same digital map of wetland locations that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses in their Wetland Status and Trends program. While not a comprehensive map of all wetlands throughout the U.S., these mapped locations are used to statistically represent the extent of wetlands nationally. Sampling sites for the NWCA were randomly selected from this digital map and distributed based on the prevalence of wetlands across the U.S. using a survey design that ensures the results reflect the full range of wetlands in the target population. Each wetland site was sampled using standardized field protocols to collect ecological data on plants, soil, water chemistry, algae, and wetland stressors. The use of standardized field and laboratory protocols is another key feature of the NWCA and allows the data to be combined to produce a nationally consistent assessment. The results presented in the NWCA 2011 report are based on data from 1,138 wetland sites sampled during the spring and summer of 2011 in the conterminous U.S. (41 sites sampled in Alaska are not included in the national and regional results in the report). The NWCA 2011 report describes the ecological condition of wetlands nationally and in four ecoregions (Coastal Plains, Eastern Mountains and Upper Midwest, Interior Plains, and West) using a biological indicator of condition and several physical, chemical, and biological indicators of stress.

    This is the first time a national monitoring study of the ecological condition of wetlands has been conducted. Under the NARS program, studies have been completed for wadeable streams (2004), lakes (2007), rivers and streams (2008-2009), and coastal waters (2010). The release of the NWCA 2011 final report will complete the first full cycle of NARS reports. EPA and our partners plan to continue to assess each of these water body types on a five year rotating basis.

    This draft report has undergone external peer review. States and other stakeholders also reviewed and commented on the draft report. The purpose of this action is to solicit public comment on the draft report before finalizing it. EPA is seeking comment on the information contained in the draft report, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and the clarity with which the information is presented. The draft report and other supporting materials may also be viewed and downloaded from EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/national-wetland-condition-assessment.

    Dated: October 28, 2015. Kenneth J. Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28266 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0562] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 4, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0562.

    Title: Section 76.916, Petition for Recertification.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 10 respondents; 15 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 4(i) and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.916 provides that a franchising authority wishing to assume jurisdiction to regulate basic cable service and associated rates after its request for certification has been denied or revoked, may file a petition for recertification with the Commission. The petition must be served on the cable operator and on any interested party that participated in the proceeding denying or revoking the original certification. Oppositions to petitions may be filed within 15 days after the petition is filed. Replies may be filed within seven days of filing of oppositions.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28137 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 15-1216] Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting in the Commission Meeting Room, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12 Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, December 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202-418-0807; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    At the December 9th meeting, the FCC Technological Advisory Council (TAC) will discuss progress on and issues involving its work program agreed to at its initial meeting on April 1, 2015. In addition, it is expected that final recommendations from current work groups will be presented to all TAC members. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live/. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to: Walter Johnston, the FCC's Designated Federal Officer for Technological Advisory Council by email: [email protected] or U.S. Postal Service Mail (Walter Johnston, Federal Communications Commission, Room 7-A224, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554). Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Office of Engineering and Technology at 202-418-2470 (voice), (202) 418-1944 (fax). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include your contact information. Please allow at least five days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28247 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10414 Polk County Bank, Johnston, IA

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10414 Polk County Bank, Johnston, IA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Polk County Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective November 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28243 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10112 First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10112 First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Bank of Kansas City (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective November 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28242 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings TIME AND DATE:

    Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-09: Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-11: FYP, LLC Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-12: Ethiq, Inc. REG 2014-09 Amendment of 11 CFR 115 Rulemaking Priorities and Proposals: Regulatory Relief for Political Parties REG 2014-10 Outline of Draft NPRM Implementing Party Segregated Accounts REG 2013-01 Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Technical Modernization Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Reporting Multistate Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications in Presidential Primary Elections Commission Documents/Public Disclosure Policies Third Motion to Set Priorities and Scheduling on Pending Enforcement Matters Awaiting Reason-to-Believe Consideration Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28370 Filed 11-3-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012366.

    Title: MOL/NMCC/WLS and NYK Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd; Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., Ltd.; World Logistics Service (U.S.A.), Inc.; and NYK Line (N.A.), Inc.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 799 9th Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The agreement would authorize the parties to charter space to/from one another for the carriage of vehicles and other Ro/Ro cargo in the trade between the U.S. and all foreign countries.

    Agreement No.: 012367.

    Title: MSC/Maersk Line Trans-Atlantic Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Maersk Line A/S and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes MSC to charter space to Maersk in the trade from Bremerhaven, Germany and Rotterdam, the Netherlands to the Port of New York/New Jersey.

    Agreement No.: 012368.

    Title: Hybur Ltd./Crowley Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Hybur Ltd. and Crowley Caribbean Services, LLC.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes Hybur to charter space to Crowley in the trade between Port Everglades, FL and George Town, Grand Cayman.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28132 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Town and Country Financial Corporation, Springfield, Illinois; to merge with West Plains Investors, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Premier Bank of Jacksonville, both in Jacksonville, Illinois.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. First Breckinridge Bancshares, Inc., Irvington, Kentucky; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of American Bank & Trust Company, Inc., Bowling Green, Kentucky.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 2, 2015.

    Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28262 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 30, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

    1. Oculina Banc Corp, Vero Beach, Florida; proposes to merge with its parent company, Colonial Banc Corp, Vero Beach, Florida. Oculina Banc Corp will survive the merger. Colonial Banc Corp and Oculina Banc Corp control Oculina Bank, Vero Beach, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 2, 2015.

    Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28261 Filed 11-4-15; 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 30, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

    1. Southern BancShares (N.C.), Inc., Mount Olive, North Carolina; to acquire voting shares of Heritage Bankshares Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Heritage Bank, both in Norfolk, Virginia.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Darwin Bancshares, Inc., Darwin, Minnesota; to merge with Winthrop Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Winthrop State Bank, both in Winthrop, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 30, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28128 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16CB; Docket No. CDC-2015-0094] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the evaluation of the progress of CDC partners that receive awards distributed via contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, from the Procurements and Grants Office (PGO). PGO is responsible for the stewardship of these funds while providing excellent, professional services to our partners and stakeholders. Data will be collected for the purpose of evaluating the progress of programmatic activities.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0094 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Performance Progress and Evaluation Report (PPER)—Existing Collection in use without an OMB Control Number—Procurements and Grants Office (PGO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Each year, approximately 80% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) budget is distributed via contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, from the Procurements and Grants Office (PGO) to partners throughout the world to promote health, prevent disease, injury and disability and prepare for new health threats. PGO is responsible for the stewardship of these funds while providing excellent, professional services to our partners and stakeholders.

    Currently, CDC uses SF-PPR (a progress report form for Non-Research awards) to collect information semi-annually from Awardees regarding the progress made over specified time periods on CDC funded projects. The SF-PPR (OMB Control Number: 0970-0406, Expiration Date: 10/31/2015) is owned by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This New ICR is being developed by CDC to create a CDC-wide collection tool called the Progress Performance and Evaluation Report (PPER) that will be used to collect data on the progress of CDC Awardees for the purposes of evaluation and to bring the Awardee reporting procedure into compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    The information collected will enable the accurate, reliable, uniform and timely submission to CDC of each Awardee's work plans and progress reports, including strategies, activities and performance measures. The information collected by the PPER is designed to align with, and support the goals outlined for each of the CDC Awardees. Collection and reporting of the information will occur in an efficient, standardized, and user-friendly manner that will generate a variety of routine and customizable reports. The PPER will allow each Awardee to summarize activities and progress towards meeting performance measures and goals over a specified time period specific to each award. CDC will also have the capacity to generate reports that describe activities across multiple Awardees. In addition, CDC will use the information collection to respond to inquiries from HHS, Congress and other stakeholder inquiries about program activities and their impact.

    The total estimated burden is 16,000 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • CDC Non-Research contract, grant, and cooperative agreement Awardees Performance Progress and Evaluation Report (PPER) 8,000 1 120/60 16,000 Total 16,000
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28155 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-0850; Docket No. CDC-2015-0093] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed extension of the Laboratory Response Network information collection.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0093 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Laboratory Response Network—Extension—(OMB Control No. 0920-0850, expires April 30, 2016), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Laboratory Response Network (LRN) was established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in accordance with Presidential Decision Directive 39, which outlined national anti-terrorism policies and assigned specific missions to Federal departments and agencies. The LRN's mission is to maintain an integrated national and international network of laboratories that can respond to suspected acts of biological, chemical, or radiological threats and other public health emergencies.

    When Federal, State and local public health laboratories voluntarily join the LRN, they assume specific responsibilities and are required to provide information to the LRN Program Office at CDC. Each laboratory must submit and maintain complete information regarding the testing capabilities of the laboratory. Biennually, laboratories are required to review, verify and update their testing capability information. Complete testing capability information is required in order for the LRN Program Office to determine the ability of the Network to respond to a biological or chemical threat event. The sensitivity of all information associated with the LRN requires the LRN Program Office to obtain personal information about all individuals accessing the LRN Web site. In addition, the LRN Program Office must be able to contact all laboratory personnel during an event so each laboratory staff member that obtains access to the restricted LRN Web site must provide his or her contact information to the LRN Program Office.

    As a requirement of membership, LRN Laboratories must report all biological and chemical testing results to the LRN Program at CDC using a CDC developed software tool called the LRN Results Messenger. This information is essential for surveillance of anomalies, to support response to an event that may involve multiple agencies and to manage limited resources. LRN Laboratories must also participate in and report results for Proficiency Testing Challenges or Validation Studies. LRN Laboratories participate in multiple Proficiency Testing Challenges, Exercises and/or Validation Studies every year consisting of five to 500 simulated samples provided by the LRN Program Office. It is necessary to conduct such challenges in order to verify the testing capability of the LRN Laboratories. The rarity of biological or chemical agents perceived to be of bioterrorism concern prevents some LRN Laboratories from maintaining proficiency as a result of day-to-day testing. Simulated samples are therefore distributed to ensure proficiency across the LRN. The results obtained from testing these simulated samples must also be entered into Results Messenger for evaluation by the LRN Program Office.

    During a surge event resulting from a bioterrorism or chemical terrorism attack, LRN Laboratories are also required to submit all testing results using LRN Results Messenger. The LRN Program Office requires these results in order to track the progression of a bioterrorism event and respond in the most efficient and effective way possible and for data sharing with other Federal partners involved in the response. The number of samples tested during a response to a possible event could range from 10,000 to more than 500,000 samples depending on the length and breadth of the event. Since there is potentially a large range in the number of samples for a surge event, CDC estimates the annualized burden for this event will be 2,250,000 hours or 625 responses per respondent.

    There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden is 2,382,300 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Respondents Forms Number of
  • respondents
  • Average
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Public Health Laboratories Biennial Requalification 150 1 2 300 Public Health Laboratories General Surveillance Testing Results 150 25 24 90,000 Public Health Laboratories Proficiency Testing/Validation Testing Results 150 5 56 42,000 Public Health Laboratories Surge Event Testing Results 150 625 24 2,250,000 Total 2,382,300
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28154 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16BX; Docket No. CDC-2015-0092] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled “Monitoring and Reporting for the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program Cooperative Agreement.” CDC will use the information collected to monitor cooperative agreement awardees and to identify challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0092 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Monitoring and Reporting for the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program Cooperative Agreement—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Unintentional and violence-related injuries and their consequences are the leading causes of death for the first four decades of life, regardless of gender, race, or socioeconomic status. More than 192,000 individuals in the United States die each year as a result of unintentional injuries and violence, and more than 31 million others suffer non-fatal injuries requiring emergency department visits each year. Given these factors, the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) provides an important opportunity for states to advance public health across the lifespan and to reduce health disparities. Support and guidance for these programs have been provided through cooperative agreement funding and technical assistance administered by CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). The goal of this ICR is to collect information needed to monitor cooperative agreement programs funded under the Core State Violence and Injury Prevention Program (Core SVIPP) (CDC-RFA-CE16-1602).

    Information to be collected will provide crucial data for program performance monitoring and provide CDC with the capacity to respond in a timely manner to requests for information about the program from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House, Congress, and other sources. Awardees will report progress and activity information to CDC on an annual schedule using an Excel-based fillable electronic templates. Each awardee will submit three information collection tools: Annual Progress Report, Evaluation and Performance Management Plan, and Injury Indicator Spreadsheets. In Year 1, each awardee will have additional burden related to initial collection of the reporting tools. Initial population of the tools is a one-time activity, after completing the initial population of the tools, pertinent information only needs to be updated annually for each report.

    CDC will use the information collected to monitor each awardee's progress and to identify facilitators and challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes. Monitoring allows CDC to determine whether an awardee is meeting performance and goals and to make adjustments in the type and level of technical assistance provided to them, as needed, to support attainment of their performance measures. With the tools, the use of a standard set of data elements, definitions and specifications at all levels will help to improve the quality and comparability of performance information that is received by CDC for multiple awardees and multiple award types by ensuring that the same information is collected on all strategies and performance measures with slightly different areas of emphasis, depending on the awardee type (BASE, Enhanced with 1 Component, or Enhanced 2 Components).

    OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the information collection is required as a condition of funding. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Core SVIPP BASE Awardees Initial Population—Annual Progress Report 20 1 22 440 Annual Progress Report 20 1 11 220 Evaluation and Performance Management Plan 20 1 2 40 Injury Indicator Spreadsheet 20 1 14 280 Core SVIPP 1—Enhanced Component Awardees Initial Population—Annual Progress Report 5 1 73 365 Annual Progress Report 5 1 58 290 Evaluation and Performance Management Plan 5 1 3 15 Injury Indicator Spreadsheet 5 1 14 70 Core SVIPP 2—Enhanced Component Awardees Initial Population—Annual Progress Report 5 1 146 730 Annual Progress Report 5 1 116 580 Evaluation and Performance Management Plan 5 1 4 20 Injury Indicator Spreadsheet 5 1 14 70 Total 3,120
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28153 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-New-30D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier HHS-OS-0990-New-30D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Information Collection Request Title: Evaluation of the Office on Women's Health Coalition for a Healthier Community Initiative.

    Abstract: This collection is to provide data for the national evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office on Women's Health (OWH) Coalition for a Healthier Community (CHC) Initiative. The initiative supports 10 communities with grants to support coalitions in implementing gender-based public health systems approaches, evidence-based health interventions, and outreach and education activities to reduce barriers to and enhance facilitators of improvements in women and girls' health. Each of the grantees has implemented an IRB-approved local evaluation; however, OWH is seeking to collect core data across grantees to examine the extent to which the Government's investment has resulted in achieving OWH-related Healthy People 2020 priorities and yields lessons learned upon which to plan future initiatives related to its mission.

    Likely Respondents: The proposed collection includes plans for interviews with key staff (project directors, project coordinators, local evaluators), coalition members (including chairs and co-chairs), and community leaders connected to the coalitions. These respondents will also complete online surveys about their perceptions of the changes in their community as a result of coalition activities. Program participants and other community members exposed to the coalitions' activities through social media will also complete online surveys. Project directors and local evaluators also annually provide information to OWH on their coalition's functioning, the status of the cost-effectiveness analysis for their coalition's interventions, and the coalition's plans for sustainability. The following table summarizes the “Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours” by form and type of respondent.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs)
  • Total burden hours
    1—Key Persons Discussion Guide for Telephone Interviews 90 2 1 180 2—Key Persons, Coalition Members, and Community Leaders Online Survey 200 1 20/60 67 3—Coalition Participants and Other Community Members Online Survey 510 1 20/60 170 4—Grantee Annual Report on Coalition Functioning, Cost-Effectiveness, and Sustainability Planning 10 2 2 40 Total 457
    Terry Clark, Asst Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28156 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3638] Minutes of Institutional Review Board Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards; Draft Guidance; Availability AGENCY:

    The Office for Human Research Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, and the Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Minutes of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and IRBs.” The draft guidance is intended for institutions and IRBs that are responsible for the review and oversight of human subject research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or regulated by FDA. The purpose of the draft guidance is to assist institutions and IRBs in preparing and maintaining minutes of IRB meetings (also referred to in the guidance as minutes) that meet the regulatory requirements for minutes set forth in FDA and HHS regulations. The draft guidance also provides general recommendations on the type and amount of information to be included in the minutes.

    DATES:

    You can comment on any guidance at any time (21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). To ensure that we consider your comment on this draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance, submit either written or electronic comments by January 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3638 for “Minutes of Institutional Review Board Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards; Draft Guidance; Availability” 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:

    Janet Donnelly, Office of Good Clinical Practice, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5167, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4187; or Irene Stith-Coleman, Office for Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Pkwy., Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-453-6900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    OHRP and FDA are announcing the availability of a draft guidance document entitled “Minutes of Institutional Review Board Meetings: Guidance for Institutions and Institutional Review Boards; Draft Guidance; Availability.” Because IRBs have been cited in OHRP determination letters and FDA warning letters as having inadequate minutes, OHRP and FDA are providing recommendations on the type and amount of information to include in minutes in order to help IRBs meet the regulatory requirements for minutes.

    To enhance human subject protection and reduce regulatory burden, OHRP and FDA have been actively working to harmonize the Agencies' regulatory requirements and guidance for human subject research. This draft guidance document was developed as a part of these efforts. OHRP and FDA believe that it will be most helpful to the regulated community to issue a joint draft guidance document which will clearly demonstrate the Agencies' harmonious approach to the topic of preparing and maintaining minutes of IRB meetings.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of OHRP and FDA on minutes of IRB meetings. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on OHRP, FDA, or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to IRB recordkeeping requirements under 21 CFR 56.115 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0755 and 0910-0130. The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to IRB recordkeeping requirements under 45 CFR 46.115 have been approved under OMB control number 0990-0260.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at eitherhttp://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/ProposedRegulationsandDraftGuidances/default.htm, or http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/newsroom/index.html, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 23, 2015. Karen B. DeSalvo, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dated: October 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27986 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, November 12, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to November 12, 2015, 02:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015, 80 FR 63236.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from November 12, 2015 to November 24, 2015. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28230 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of Therapeutics To Treat Brain Injury and Neurodegenerative Disease AGENCY:

    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7, that the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“Astrocyte”), a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to practice the following inventions embodied in the following patent applications: US Provisional Patent Appl. No. 60/176,373 entitled, “Methanocarba cycloalkyl nucleoside analogues,” filed 14 Jan 2000 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-01]; Intl. Appl. No. PCT/US01/00981, entitled, “Methanocarba cycloalkyl nucleoside analogues,” filed 12 Jan 2001 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-PCT-02]; Australia Patent No. 2001230913, issued 13 Oct 2005 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-AU-03]; Canada Patent No. 2.397,366, issued 15 Mar 2011 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-CA-04]; European Patent Appl. No. 01903043.6 entitled, filed 12 Jan 2001 [HHS Ref No E-176-1999/0-EP-05]; US Patent No. 7,087,589, issued 8 Aug 2006 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-06]; US patent No. 7,790,735, issued 8 Aug 2006 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-07]; and Great Britain patent No. 1252160, issued 16 Aug 2006 [HHS reference E-176-1999/0-US-08]. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. The territories included in this license may be worldwide. The field of use may be related to “Use of the patent rights in the development and sale of therapeutics for cerebral trauma, stroke, and neurodegenerative disorders.”

    DATES:

    Only written comments or applications for a license (or both) which are received by the Technology Advancement Office of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) on or before November 20, 2015 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, patents, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Technology Advancement Office, The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 12A South Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone: (301) 435-5560; Email: [email protected] A signed confidentiality non-disclosure agreement will be required to receive copies of any patent applications that have not been published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The technology provides novel nucleoside and nucleotide derivatives that are agonist or antagonists of P1 and P2 receptors and may be useful in the treatment or prevention of various diseases including airway diseases, cancer, cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac ischemia, epilepsy, and Huntington's Disease.

    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NIDDK receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

    Properly filed competing applications for a license received by the NIDDK in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Anna Z. Amar, Acting Deputy Director, Technology Advancement Office, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28245 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; 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 Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NCI Provocative Questions—Cancer with an Underlying HIV Infection.

    Date: December 9, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W514, Rockville, MD 20850, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Peter J. Wirth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W514, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6434, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NCI Program Project Meeting I (P01).

    Date: January 27-28, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Delia Tang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W602, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-6456, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NCI Program Project Meeting II (P01).

    Date: February 2-3, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Caterina Bianco, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W610, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6459, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NCI SPORE Review II.

    Date: February 3-4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: David G. Ransom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W124, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6351, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NCI SPORE III Review.

    Date: February 4-5, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Majed M. Hamawy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W120, Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-276-6457, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 30, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28229 Filed 11-4-15; 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; Cancer Health Disparities/Diversity in Basic Cancer Research Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: November 12, 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: Arnold Revzin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, MSC 7824, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1153, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Health Disparities/Diversity in Basic Cancer Research.

    Date: November 12-13, 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: Svetlana Kotliarova, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3493, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (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 30, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28227 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public 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: Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs Subcommittee.

    Date: February 9, 2016.

    Closed: 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Conference Room B, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Betsy L. Humphreys, M.L.S., Acting Director, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Building 38, Room 2E17, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-6661, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.

    Date: February 9-10, 2016.

    Open: February 9, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: Program Discussion.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: February 9, 2016, 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: February 10, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Program Discussion.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Betsy L. Humphreys, M.L.S., Acting Director, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Building 38, Room 2E17, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-6661, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nlm.nih.gov/od/bor/bor.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available. This meeting will be broadcast to the public, and available for at viewing at http://videocast.nih.gov on February 9-10, 2016.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: October 29, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28235 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR15-162: Pilot Clinical Urology, October 22, 2015, 04:00 p.m. to October 22, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport, 1489 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202 which was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2015, 80 FR 56476.

    The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on November 23, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28228 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Library of Medicine, 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, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    Date: April 7-8, 2016.

    Open: April 7, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Review of research and development programs and preparation of reports of the Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: April 7, 2016, 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications, performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: April 8, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications, performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building