Federal Register Vol. 80, No.217,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 217 (November 10, 2015)

Page Range69563-69836
FR Document

80_FR_217
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 69567 - Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)PDF
80 FR 69835 - Veterans Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 69698 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 69635 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 69773 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of DirectorsPDF
80 FR 69635 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 69736 - In the Matter of Inelco Corp., and Teliphone Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 69722 - Sunshine Act Notice-Public HearingPDF
80 FR 69741 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 69693 - Notice of Availability of the Southline Transmission Line Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0474), New Mexico and ArizonaPDF
80 FR 69636 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity ASA Electronics, LLC Subzone 125D (Motor Vehicle Audio-Visual Products) Elkhart, IndianaPDF
80 FR 69640 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Pursuant to Court DecisionPDF
80 FR 69637 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
80 FR 69643 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Affirmative Less Than Fair Value DeterminationPDF
80 FR 69638 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 69652 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory PanelPDF
80 FR 69629 - Request for Comment: Kentucky Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Primacy ApprovalPDF
80 FR 69653 - Notice of Opportunity To Provide Information on Existing Programs That Protect Water Quality From Forest Road DischargesPDF
80 FR 69770 - Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Percentage Rates of Covered Aviation Employees for the Period of January 1, 2016, Through December 31, 2016PDF
80 FR 69637 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 57-Charlotte, North Carolina, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, DNP Imagingcomm America Corporation, Subzone 57C, (Dye Sublimation Transfer Ribbon (STR) and STR Photo Printer Packages), Concord, North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 69627 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County's Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Four Industry Categories for Control of Volatile Organic Compound EmissionsPDF
80 FR 69644 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014PDF
80 FR 69641 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 69772 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft StructuresPDF
80 FR 69772 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Changes in Permissible Stage 2 Airplane OperationsPDF
80 FR 69773 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS) Including ARRA RequirementsPDF
80 FR 69771 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Airport Master RecordPDF
80 FR 69698 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.PDF
80 FR 69697 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc.PDF
80 FR 69698 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Ros-Industrial AmericasPDF
80 FR 69770 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental OperationsPDF
80 FR 69771 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial Air Tour Operator ReportsPDF
80 FR 69774 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel EASTER B; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69776 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BLUE MOON; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69775 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GUNGHO; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69775 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SAMBA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69773 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ENCHANTED; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69776 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BELLA LUNA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69777 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TIERRA LYNN; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 69646 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69688 - Submission for OMB Review; 30 Day Comment Request; Evaluation of the Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) Program (OD)PDF
80 FR 69685 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; NIH Office of Intramural Training & Education Application (OD)PDF
80 FR 69698 - Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 69632 - Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Select Agent RegistrationPDF
80 FR 69721 - Proposed Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked QuestionsPDF
80 FR 69705 - Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3PDF
80 FR 69702 - Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External EventsPDF
80 FR 69686 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 69687 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 69687 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69687 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 69686 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 69707 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 69768 - Notice of Issuance of a Presidential Permit to Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC To Connect, Operate, and Maintain Existing Pipeline Facilities at the International Boundary Between the United States and CanadaPDF
80 FR 69588 - Visas: Interview Waiver AuthorityPDF
80 FR 69784 - Cancellation of Meeting; National Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting CancellationPDF
80 FR 69701 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Education and Human Resources Program Monitoring ClearancePDF
80 FR 69564 - Worker Safety and Health Program; Technical AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 69783 - Agency Information Collection (Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory) Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 69663 - Information Collection Requirement Being Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Emergency Review and ApprovalPDF
80 FR 69722 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Upcoming MeetingPDF
80 FR 69623 - Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program: Providing Option C Coverage for Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners; WithdrawalPDF
80 FR 69567 - Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-9 Airplane; Structure-Mounted AirbagsPDF
80 FR 69723 - Excepted ServicePDF
80 FR 69726 - Excepted ServicePDF
80 FR 69700 - Notice of Extension to Public Comment Period for Two Consent Decrees Under the Resource Recovery and Conservation ActPDF
80 FR 69649 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Grantee Reporting Form-RSA Annual Payback ReportPDF
80 FR 69650 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward BoundPDF
80 FR 69689 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69635 - Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 69661 - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point ArchitecturePDF
80 FR 69777 - Fiscal ServicePDF
80 FR 69630 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
80 FR 69660 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
80 FR 69649 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69589 - Housing Improvement ProgramPDF
80 FR 69695 - Proposed Information Collection; National Park Service ConcessionsPDF
80 FR 69674 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 69619 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster FisheryPDF
80 FR 69648 - National Commission on the Future of the Army; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 69782 - Solicitation of Nomination for Appointment to the VA Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 69695 - Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New MexicoPDF
80 FR 69633 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69634 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69602 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Steamboat Slough (Snohomish River), Marysville, WAPDF
80 FR 69719 - Information Collection: NRC Form 171, Duplication RequestPDF
80 FR 69720 - Information Collection: Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct MaterialPDF
80 FR 69623 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop EnginesPDF
80 FR 69625 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
80 FR 69651 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 69675 - Mylan N.V.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 69738 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Requiring Certain Member Organizations To Participate in Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance and IntegrityPDF
80 FR 69745 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Requiring Certain ETP Holders To Participate in Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance and IntegrityPDF
80 FR 69767 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Mini OptionsPDF
80 FR 69761 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the LIST Routing OptionPDF
80 FR 69751 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Options That Overlie a Reduced Value of the FTSE 100 IndexPDF
80 FR 69760 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 69734 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Business and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing Requirements for Certain Participants in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance and IntegrityPDF
80 FR 69731 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Requiring OTP Holders To Participate in Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance and IntegrityPDF
80 FR 69728 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide Mechanism for Sub-Account Settlement With Respect to the Alternative Investment Product ServicesPDF
80 FR 69748 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Data Feeds From National Stock Exchange, Inc. for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory CompliancePDF
80 FR 69765 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Requiring Certain Member Organizations To Participate in Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans Testing in Connection With Regulation Systems Compliance and IntegrityPDF
80 FR 69749 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE MKT Rule 19-Equities To Specify in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Data Feeds From National Stock Exchange, Inc. for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory CompliancePDF
80 FR 69755 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Chapter XV, Entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 2 Governing Pricing for NASDAQ MembersPDF
80 FR 69647 - U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 69737 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 19 To Specify in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Data Feeds From National Stock Exchange, Inc. for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory CompliancePDF
80 FR 69741 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Options That Overlie a Reduced Value of the FTSE China 50 IndexPDF
80 FR 69699 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government EntitiesPDF
80 FR 69781 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 5754PDF
80 FR 69780 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 69781 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 69604 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by ReferencePDF
80 FR 69779 - Agency Information Collection Activity; Proposed CollectionPDF
80 FR 69779 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 14411PDF
80 FR 69780 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for RP 2006-30PDF
80 FR 69778 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2003-36PDF
80 FR 69778 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 69602 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and TransferPDF
80 FR 69782 - Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Renewal of CharterPDF
80 FR 69664 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 69662 - Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on an Appropriate Method for Determining the Protected Contours for Grandfathered 3650-3700 MHz Band LicenseesPDF
80 FR 69700 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
80 FR 69578 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 69692 - Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act of 2000 Approval of Navajo Nation RegulationsPDF
80 FR 69677 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 69681 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 69680 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 69679 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 69683 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 69674 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 69674 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 69563 - Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal AwardsPDF
80 FR 69632 - Performance Review Board AppointmentsPDF
80 FR 69707 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 69569 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69571 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation)PDF
80 FR 69588 - Scope of the Export Administration RegulationsPDF
80 FR 69588 - General InformationPDF
80 FR 69786 - Exemptions To Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities OfferingsPDF
80 FR 69573 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 69630 - WTB Seeks Comment on a Petition for Declaratory Ruling Clarifying the Regulatory Status of Mobile Messaging ServicesPDF

Issue

80 217 Tuesday, November 10, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES Performance Review Board Appointments, 69632 2015-28417
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Select Agent Registration, 69632-69633 2015-28597 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperation and Production Act: IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc., 69698 2015-28617 Pistoia Alliance, Inc., 69697-69698 2015-28616 Southwest Research Institute - Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas, 69698 2015-28613 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 69567 C1--2015--26607 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69646-69647 2015-28602 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee, 69635-69636 2015-28557 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69677-69684 2015-28472 2015-28473 2015-28474 2015-28475 2015-28471 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69635 2015-28711 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69635 2015-28715 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Steamboat Slough (Snohomish River), Marysville, WA, 69602 2015-28538 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

Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69649 2015-28551 Meetings: National Commission on the Future of the Army, 69648-69649 2015-28543 U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, 69647-69648 2015-28506 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Grantee Reporting Form: RSA Annual Payback Report, 69649-69650 2015-28564 Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound, 69650-69651 2015-28563 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

RULES Worker Safety and Health Program, 69564-69567 2015-28575
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer, 69602-69604 2015-28486 Ohio; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference, 69604-69619 2015-28498 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Pennsylvania; Allegheny County's Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Four Industry Categories for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, 69627-69629 2015-28645 Kentucky Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: Primacy Approval, 69629-69630 2015-28662 NOTICES Meetings: Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel, 69652-69653 2015-28663 Opportunity to Provide Information on Existing Programs that Protect Water Quality from Forest Road Discharges, 69653-69660 2015-28649 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69633-69634 2015-28540 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 69573-69578 2015-28197 Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes, 69569-69571 2015-28338 Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corp.), 69571-69573 2015-28313 Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-9 Airplane; Structure-Mounted Airbags, 69567-69569 2015-28568 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 69578-69588 2015-28478 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop Engines, 69623-69625 2015-28534 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 69625-69627 2015-28533 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Changes in Permissible Stage 2 Airplane Operations, 69772-69773 2015-28621 Commercial Air Tour Operator Reports, 69771-69772 2015-28611 Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures, 69772 2015-28622 FAA Acquisition Management System Including ARRA Requirements, 69773 2015-28620 FAA Airport Master Record, 69771 2015-28618 Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations, 69770 2015-28612 Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Percentage Rates of Covered Aviation Employees, 69770-69771 2015-28647 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petition for Declaratory Ruling Clarifying the Regulatory Status of Mobile Messaging Services, 69630-69631 2015-27899 Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 69630 2015-28554 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69660-69664 2015-28553 2015-28572 Meetings: Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture, 69661-69662 2015-28556 Method for Determining the Protected Contours for Grandfathered 3650-3700 MHz Band Licensees, 69662-69663 2015-28481 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 69651-69652 2015-28523 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69664-69674 2015-28483 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69773 2015-28713 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 69674 2015-28468 2015-28545 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 69674 2015-28469 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction, 69674-69675 2015-28467 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Mylan N.V.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 69675-69677 2015-28522 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Percentage Rates: Rate to be Used for Federal Debt Collection, and Discount and Rebate Evaluation, 69777 2015-28555 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69634-69635 2015-28539 Foreign Claims Foreign Claims Settlement Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69698 2015-28768 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: ASA Electronics, LLC, Subzone 125D, Elkhart, IN, 69636 2015-28669 DNP Imagingcomm America Corp., Subzone 57C, Concord, NC, 69637 2015-28646 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau RULES Housing Improvement Program, 69589-69602 2015-28547 NOTICES Approval of Navajo Nation Leasing Regulations, 69692-69693 2015-28476 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES General Information; CFR Correction, 69588 2015-28285 Scope of the Export Administration Regulations; CFR Correction, 69588 2015-28286 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69778-69782 2015-28488 2015-28490 2015-28492 2015-28493 2015-28497 2015-28499 2015-28500 2015-28501 Charter Renewals: Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69782 2015-28485 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 69640-69641 2015-28668 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 69641-69643 2015-28623 Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China, 69638-69640, 69644-69646 2015-28644 2015-28664 Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Amended, 69637-69638 2015-28667 Preliminary Affirmative Less Than Fair Value Determination: Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People's Republic of China; Correction, 69643-69644 2015-28665 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government Entities, 69699-69700 2015-28502 Consent Decrees under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, 69700 2015-28565 Meetings: National Commission on Forensic Science, 69698-69699 2015-28599 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 69700-69701 2015-28479
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Southline Transmission Line Project, New Mexico and Arizona, 69693-69695 2015-28676 Meetings: Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council, New Mexico, 69695 2015-28541 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BELLA LUNA, 69776-69777 2015-28604 Vessel BLUE MOON, 69776 2015-28609 Vessel EASTER B, 69774 2015-28610 Vessel ENCHANTED, 69773-69774 2015-28605 Vessel GUNGHO, 69775 2015-28608 Vessel SAMBA, 69775-69776 2015-28606 Vessel TIERRA LYNN, 69777 2015-28603 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of the Science Education Partnership Award Program (OD), 69688-69689 2015-28601 NIH Office of Intramural Training and Education Application (OD), 69685-69686 2015-28600 Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 69687 2015-28585 National Cancer Institute; Amendments, 69686 2015-28583 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 69686-69688 2015-28584 2015-28587 2015-28588 2015-28582 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 69687 2015-28586 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery, 69619-69622 2015-28544 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Park Service Concessions, 69695-69697 2015-28546 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Education and Human Resources Program Monitoring Clearance, 69701-69702 2015-28576 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Duplication Request, 69719-69720 2015-28536 Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material, 69720-69721 2015-28535 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Southern California Edison Co., San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, 69705-69707 2015-28594 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 69707-69719 2015-28347 Guidance: Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, 69702-69705 2015-28593 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices, 69707 2015-28581 Proposed Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Questions, 69721-69722 2015-28595 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69722 2015-28705 Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program: Providing Option C Coverage for Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners; Withdrawal, 69623 2015-28569 NOTICES Excepted Service, 69723-69728 2015-28566 2015-28567 Meetings: Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation, 69722-69723 2015-28571 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Veterans Day (Proc. 9364), 69833-69836 2015-28801 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Exemptions to Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities Offerings, 69786-69832 2015-28219 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69741 2015-28699 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 69741-69745, 69751-69755, 69760-69761, 69767-69768 2015-28504 2015-28515 2015-28516 2015-28519 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 69734-69736 2015-28514 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 69755-69764 2015-28508 2015-28518 National Securities Clearing Corp., 69728-69731 2015-28512 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 69737-69738, 69765-69767 2015-28505 2015-28510 NYSE Arca, Inc., 69731-69734, 69745-69749 2015-28511 2015-28513 2015-28520 NYSE MKT, LLC, 69738-69741, 69749-69751 2015-28509 2015-28521 Trading Suspension Orders: Inelco Corp., and Teliphone Corp., 69736 2015-28706 Social Social Security Administration RULES Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 69563-69564 2015-28432 State Department State Department RULES Visas: Interview Waiver Authority, 69588-69589 2015-28578 NOTICES Presidential Permits: Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC, 69768-69770 2015-28579 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 69689-69692 2015-28558 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory, 69783-69784 2015-28573 Meetings: National Research Advisory Council; Cancellation, 69784 2015-28577 Requests for Nominations: VA Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, 69782-69783 2015-28542 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Southline Transmission Line Project, New Mexico and Arizona, 69693-69695 2015-28676 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 69786-69832 2015-28219 Part III Presidential Documents, 69833-69836 2015-28801 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.

80 217 Tuesday, November 10, 2015 Rules and Regulations SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 2 CFR Part 2300 20 CFR Parts 435 and 437 [Docket No. SSA-2015-0022] RIN 0960-AH73 Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule adopts the joint interim final rule that was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014. This final rule implements the final guidance Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 26, 2013. This rule brings into effect the Uniform Guidance as required by OMB. Implementation of this guidance by all Federal award-making agencies will reduce administrative burden and risk of waste, fraud, and abuse for the approximately $600 billion per year awarded in Federal financial assistance government wide. The result will be more Federal dollars reprogrammed to support the mission, an increase in the number of new entities able to compete and win awards, and ultimately a stronger framework to provide key services to American citizens and support the basic research that underpins the United States economy.

DATES:

This final rule is effective November 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general information, please contact Christopher Brennan, Division Director, at the Social Security Administration Office of Acquisition and Grants, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, or via telephone at (410) 966-0392.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This final rule adopts the joint interim final rule that was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014 (available at 79 FR 75871).1 The joint interim final rule implemented for all Federal award-making agencies the final guidance Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on December 26, 2013 in 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Guidance—available at 78 FR 78589). The Uniform Guidance followed on a Notice of Proposed Guidance issued February 1, 2013 (available at 78 FR 7282), and an Advanced Notice of Proposed Guidance issued February 28, 2012 (available at 77 FR 11778). The final guidance incorporated feedback received from the public in response to those earlier issuances. Additional supporting resources are available from the Council on Financial Assistance Reform at www.cfo.gov/COFAR.

1 The Interim Final Rule is available at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-19/pdf/2014-28697.pdf.

The Uniform Guidance delivered on two presidential directives; Executive Order 13520 on Reducing Improper Payments (74 FR 62201; November 15, 20019), and February 28, 2011 Presidential Memorandum on Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, (Daily Comp. Pres. Docs.; http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100123/pdf/DCPD-201100123.pdf). It reflected more than two years of work by the Council on Financial Assistance Reform to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal financial assistance. For a detailed discussion of the reform and its impacts, please see the Federal Register notice for the issuance of the final guidance (78 FR 78589).

With this final rule, we are adopting OMB's uniform guidance to make technical corrections where needed into our chapter of title 2 of the CFR. With respect to the technical corrections that OMB is issuing, these corrections are included only where it has come to the attention of the COFAR that particular language in the final guidance did not match with the COFAR's intent and would result in an erroneous implementation of the guidance. These technical corrections were detailed in the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014 (available at 79 FR 75871).

Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 as supplements by Executive Order 13563, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this joint interim final rule to be not significant.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency that is issuing a final rule to provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The common interim final rule implemented OMB final guidance issued on December 26, 2013, and will not have a significant economic impact beyond the impact of the December 2013 guidance.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA), each agency reviewed its final rule and determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein. However, the OMB uniform guidance in 2 CFR 200 may have a negligible effect on burden estimates for existing information collections, including recordkeeping requirements for non-Federal entities that receive Federal awards.

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking in General

OMB offered the public two opportunities to comment on the Uniform Guidance, first through an advanced notice of proposed guidance and, second, through a notice of proposed guidance. OMB considered over 300 comments submitted in response to each of these notices. OMB has directed agencies to adopt the uniform guidance in part 200 without change, except to the extent that an agency can demonstrate that any conflicting agency requirements are required by statute or regulations, or consistent with longstanding practice and approved by OMB. Finally, OMB made clear that the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, including the audit requirements in subpart F, will apply, starting on December 26, 2014, which gave recipients of all types of financial assistance advance notice of when the regulations would become effective. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause for waiving proposed rulemaking as unnecessary.

Waiver of Delayed Effective Date in General

Generally, those agencies that are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are required to delay the effective date of their final regulations by 30 days after publication, as required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an exception under subsection (d) applies.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), these agencies may waive the delayed effective date requirement if they find good cause and explain the basis for the waiver in the final rulemaking document or if the regulations grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction. In the present case, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for two reasons.

First, OMB informed the public on December 26, 2013, that agencies would be required to adopt the Uniform Guidance and make it effective by December 26, 2014. The public has had significant time to prepare for the promulgation of these interim final regulations.

Second, while these interim final regulations are based on a new, more effective method for establishing government-wide requirements, the substance of the regulations are, in most cases, virtually identical to the requirements that exist in current agency regulations. In virtually all cases where the new regulations depart from prior OMB guidance to agencies, the new regulations reduce burdens on the public, for example, by increasing the threshold for single audits from $500,000 to $750,000.

Based on these considerations, since we are subject to the APA, we have determined that there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for this final rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. OMB has determined that the joint interim final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

Executive Order 13132 Determination

OMB determined that the joint interim final rule did not have any Federalism implications, as required by Executive Order 13132.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income; 96.007, Social Security Research and Demonstration; 96.008, Social Security—Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Programs; 96.009, Social Security State Grants for Work Incentives Assistance to Disabled Beneficiaries.) Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we are adopting the interim final rule, which was published on December 19, 2014 (available at 79 FR 75871) that amended 2 CFR chapter XXIII and, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, removed and reserved parts 435 and 437 of title 20, chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations as a final rule without any further changes.

[FR Doc. 2015-28432 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 851 RIN 1992-AA50 Worker Safety and Health Program; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending the worker safety and health program rule to clarify references in the regulation to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's permissible exposure limit for beryllium and updating references to organizations and documents. The regulatory amendments do not alter substantive rights or obligations under current law.

DATES:

This rule is effective on November 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline D. Rogers, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, Mailstop AU-11, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone: (202) 586-4714, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In 2006, when DOE promulgated 10 CFR part 851, “Worker Safety and Health Program,” it adopted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for beryllium in 29 CFR 1910.1000, “Air Contaminants.” Section 851.23(a)(1) of part 851 also requires DOE contractors to comply with the requirements in 10 CFR part 850, “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.”

OSHA has published in the Federal Register a notice that proposes a new comprehensive health standard for beryllium in 29 CFR part 1910, “Subpart Z Toxic and Hazardous Substances,” which will include a new PEL and ancillary provisions. Currently, OSHA only regulates beryllium through a PEL. DOE's regulation “Worker Safety and Health Program” at 10 CFR 851.23(a)(3) requires DOE contractors among other things to comply with OSHA's PEL for beryllium. To date, OSHA has not established any ancillary requirements for the regulation of beryllium exposure. Consequently, there are currently no conflicts between the requirement in 10 CFR part 851 to comply with OSHA's regulation, including OSHA's PEL, and the remaining requirements of 10 CFR parts 850 and 851. However, should OSHA adopt a comprehensive standard for beryllium, as OSHA recently proposed in the Federal Register, there may be confusion among DOE and DOE contractors regarding which standard would apply at DOE sites. The technical amendment clarifies that it is DOE's intent to only apply OSHA's PEL for beryllium, and that DOE and DOE contractors would not be subject to any other beryllium-specific OSHA requirements, including the ancillary provisions OSHA has recently proposed to add to its health standard (e.g., exposure assessment, personal protective clothing and equipment, medical surveillance, medical removal, training, and regulated areas or access control). The Department expects its employees, including contractors to continue to implement the provisions of 10 CFR part 850 at DOE sites.

The Department is also making technical amendments to 10 CFR part 851, Appendix A, Section 7, “Biological Safety,” to avoid confusion within the DOE community regarding the correct terminology, the identity of the agency responsible for biohazards, and the correct forms to use for select agents.

This final rule has been approved by the Secretary of Energy.

II. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This regulatory action has been determined not to be “a significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies to ensure that the potential impacts of its draft rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990, February 19, 2003), and has made them available on the Office of General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking reflect technical amendments, and clarify DOE's intent to continue to only apply OSHA's PEL for beryllium, and to not apply to DOE and DOE contractors any other beryllium-specific OSHA requirements that may be promulgated in the future. Rights and obligations under 10 CFR part 851 are unaltered and as such, are not subject to the requirement for a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) (APA). There is no requirement under the APA or any other law that this rule be proposed for public comment. Consequently, this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rule amends existing regulations without changing the environmental effect of the regulations being amended, and, therefore, is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (5) defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of a Federal regulatory action on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. DOE has determined that this regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OIRA, which is part of OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

K. Administrative Procedure Act

An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from the requirement for a notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment under the APA if the requirement is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest under 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(3)(B). The rule clarifies references in 10 CFR part 851 concerning its adoption of provisions found in 29 CFR part 1910, and updates references to organizations and documents. The first change in this rule is to add “Occupational Safety and Health Administration beryllium requirements except for any permissible exposure limit for beryllium in 29 CFR 1910.1000” to the list of exclusions from 10 CFR part 851, found in 10 CFR 851.2. The second change in this rule is the addition of the words “and 29 CFR 1910.1000, Beryllium” at the end of 10 CFR 851.23(a)(3). Safety and Health requirements relating to DOE and DOE contractors' employees' exposure to beryllium are and will continue to be covered by 10 CFR part 850, “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.” The updates of referenced organizations and documents in 10 CFR part 851, Appendix A, Section 7 are strictly technical amendments. Consequently, good cause exists for issuing this amendment as a final rule as notice and comment is unnecessary.

L. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 851

Civil penalty, Federal buildings and facilities, Occupational safety and health, Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2015. Matthew B. Moury, Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 851 of chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 851—WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 851 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3), (p); 42 U.S.C. 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

2. Section 851.2 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 851.2 Exclusions.

(d) This part does not require compliance with any Occupational Safety and Health Administration beryllium requirement except for any permissible exposure limit for beryllium in 29 CFR 1910.1000.

§ 851.23 [Amended]
3. Section 851.23 is amended in paragraph (a)(3) by adding at the end of the sentence “, and 29 CFR 1910.1000, Beryllium”.
4. Appendix A, section 7, Biological Safety, is amended: a. In paragraph (a)(1)(i) by adding “, United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS)” in the first sentence, after “(WHO)”; and b. By revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 851—Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas

7. * * *

(a) * * *

(3) Provides for submission to the appropriate Head of DOE Field Element, for review and concurrence before transmittal to the Federal Select Agent Program, each Laboratory Registration/Select Agent Program registration application package (APHIS/CDC Form 1, Application for Registration for Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins) requesting registration of (or amendment to a previously approved registration) a laboratory facility for the purpose of possessing, using, or transferring biological select agents and/or toxins.

(4) Provides for submission to the appropriate Head of DOE Field Element, a copy of each APHIS/CDC Form 2, Request to Transfer Select Agents and Toxins, upon initial submission of APHIS/CDC Form 2 to a vendor or other supplier requesting or ordering a biological select agent or toxin for transfer, receipt, and handling in the registered facility; and submission to the appropriate Head of DOE Field Element the completed copy of the APHIS/CDC Form 2, documenting final disposition and/or destruction of the select agent or toxin, within 10 days of completion of the APHIS/CDC Form 2.

[FR Doc. 2015-28575 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1003 [Docket No. CFPB-2014-0019] RIN 3170-AA10 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) Correction

In rule document 2015-26607 beginning on page 66128 in the issue of Wednesday, October 28, 2015, make the following corrections:

1. On page 66256, in the second column, in the nineteenth line, “I. Effective Date” should read “VI. Effective Date.”

2. On page 66296, in the third column, in the fourteenth and fifteenth lines, “III. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis” should read “VIII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis”.

3. On page 66305, in the first column, in the 23rd line, “IV. Paperwork Reduction Act” should read “IX. Paperwork Reduction Act”.

[FR Doc. C1-2015-26607 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4086; Special Conditions No. 25-605-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-9 Airplane; Structure-Mounted Airbags AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is airbags mounted to structure to prevent serious injury. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Boeing on November 10, 2015. We must receive your comments by December 28, 2015 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeff Gardlin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2136; facsimile 425-227-1232.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On July 5, 2009, The Boeing Company applied for a change to type certificate no. T00021SE for structure-mounted airbags in the Model 787-9 airplane. The Model 787-9 airplane, which is a derivative of the Model 787 series currently approved under type certificate no. T00021SE, has a maximum passenger capacity of 420 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 557,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, The Boeing Company must show that the 787-9, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations reference listed in type certificate no. T00021SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

The certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 787-9 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 787-9 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Model 787-9 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Airbags mounted to structure to prevent head injury.

Discussion

Boeing proposes to install structure-mounted airbags instead of inflatable lap belts as a means to protect each occupant from serious injury in the event of an emergency landing, as required by § 25.562(c)(5), on 787-9 airplanes equipped with B/E Aerospace Super-Diamond Model business-class passenger seats.

Such use of airbags to provide injury protection for the occupant is a novel or unusual feature for this airplane model, and the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for these design features. Therefore, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to installation of airbags in this manner.

Special conditions exist for airbags installed on seat belts, known as inflatable lap belts, which have been installed on Boeing passenger seats. Structure-mounted airbags, although a novel design, were first introduced on Jetstream Aircraft Limited Model 4100 series airplanes, which resulted in issuance of Special Conditions 25-ANM-127 on May 14, 1997. These special conditions supplemented 14 CFR part 25 and, more specifically, §§ 25.562 and 25.785.

The structure-mounted airbag, similar to the inflatable lap belt, is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an emergency landing. These airbags will reduce the potential for serious injury, including reducing the head injury criterion (HIC) measurement defined in part 25. However, structure-mounted airbags function similarly as automotive airbags, where the airbag deploys from the furniture that is in front of the passenger, relative to the airplane's direction of flight, forming a barrier between the structure and occupant. Also, unlike the inflatable lap belt, the structure-mounted airbag does not move with the occupant. To account for out-of-position and brace-position occupants, the airbag is designed to conform to the curvature of the exposed structure in the head-strike zone.

Because the airbag system is essentially a single-use device, it could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently so severe as to require the injury protection the airbag system provides. Because an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, a larger impact following the initial impact could render the airbag system unavailable. This potential situation does not exist with standard upper-torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous protection regardless of impact severity, or number of impacts, in a crash event. Therefore, the airbag-system installation should be such that it provides protection, when it is required, by not expending its protection when it is not required. If the airbag deployment threshold is unnecessarily low, the airbag would need to continue to provide protection when an impact requiring protection occurs.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane. Should The Boeing Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 787-9 airplanes.

1. The applicant must demonstrate by test that the structure-mounted airbag will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury to a 50th percentile occupant, as specified in § 25.562. The means of protection must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption for a range of occupants, from a two-year-old child to a 95th percentile male.

2. The structure-mounted airbag must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly.

3. The structure-mounted airbag system must not be susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings) likely to be experienced in service.

4. Deployment of the structure-mounted airbag must not introduce hazards or injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, including occupants in the brace position. Deployment of the structure-mounted airbag must also not result in injuries that could impede rapid exit from the airplane.

5. The applicant must demonstrate that an inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable. Inadvertent deployment must not cause injury to anyone who may be positioned close to the structure-mounted airbag (e.g., seated in an adjacent seat, or standing adjacent to the airbag installation or the subject seat). Cases where a structure-mounted airbag is inadvertently deployed near a seated occupant or an empty seat must be considered.

6. Effects of the deflection and deformation of the structure to which the airbag is attached must be taken into account when evaluating deployment and location of the inflated airbag. The effect of loads imposed by airbag deployment, or stowed components where applicable, must also be taken into account.

7. Inadvertent deployment of the structure-mounted airbag during the most critical part of flight will either not cause a hazard to the airplane or is extremely improbable.

8. The applicant must demonstrate that the structure-mounted airbag, when deployed, does not impair access to the seatbelt- or harness-release means, and must not hinder evacuation. This will include consideration of adjacent seat places and the aisle.

9. The airbag, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency-lighting system, and must not block escape-path lighting to the extent that the light(s) no longer meet their intended function.

10. The structure-mounted airbag must not impede occupants' rapid exit from the airplane 10 seconds after its deployment.

11. Where structure-mounted airbag systems are installed in or close to passenger evacuation routes (other than for the passenger seat for which the airbag is installed), possibility of impact on emergency evacuation (e.g., hanging in the aisle, potential trip hazard, etc.) must be evaluated.

12. The airbag electronic system must be designed to be protected from lightning per 14 CFR 25.1316(b), and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) per 14 CFR 25.1317(c).

13. The structure-mounted airbag system must not contain or release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.

14. The structure-mounted airbag installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.

15. The inflatable bag material must meet the 2.5-inches-per-minute horizontal flammability test defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(1)(iv).

16. The design of the structure-mounted airbag system must protect the mechanisms and controls from external contamination associated with that which could occur on or around passenger seating.

17. The structure-mounted airbag system must have a means to verify the integrity of the structure-mounted airbag activation system.

18. The applicant must provide installation limitations to ensure installation compatibility between the seat design and opposing monument or structure.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28568 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3620; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-029-AD; Amendment 39-18319; AD 2015-23-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 2014-20-13 for certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue cracks on the fin forward pickup plates, which could cause it to fail. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective December 15, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3620; 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 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand, phone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may view this 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2015-3620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2015 (80 FR 51966), and proposed to supersede AD 2014-20-13, Amendment 39-17986 (79 FR 60329, October 7, 2014).

Since we issued AD 2014-20-13, Amendment 39-17986 (79 FR 60329, October 7, 2014), Pacific Aerospace Limited has revised the related service information and developed a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/18A, dated August 4, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

DCA/750XL/18A revised to add note 2 and introduce minor editorial changes. This AD supersedes DCA/750XL/18 and DCA/750XL/16A to introduce the requirements in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/068 issue 5, dated 29 June 2015. The revised MSB introduces a life limit for fin forward pickup P/N 11-10281-1 and reduces the torque setting for the fin forward pickup bolt to alleviate some of the loads applied to the pickup. The MSB also introduces a replacement fin forward pickup P/N 11-03375-1 which is not life limited.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3620-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 51966, August 27, 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 the 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 51966, August 27, 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 51966, August 27, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for reducing the torque setting for the fin forward pickup bolt. The service bulletin also introduces a new, improved replacement fin forward pickup plate, part number (P/N) 11-0375-1, to replace P/N 11-10281-1. 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 will affect 18 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to comply with all the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,692 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $64,116, or $3,562 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 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3620; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 removing Amendment 39-17986 (79 FR 60329, October 7, 2014) and adding the following new AD: 2015-23-03 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-18319; Docket No. FAA-2015-3620; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-024-AD. (a) Effective Date

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) becomes effective December 15, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2014-20-13, Amendment 39-17986 (79 FR 60329, October 7, 2014).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers through XL-193, XL-195, and XL-197, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue cracks on the fin forward pickup plates. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked fin forward pickup plates to prevent failure of the fin forward pickup plates, which could result in reduced control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:

(1) Within the next 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after December 15, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), reduce the fin forward pickup bolt torque following the procedures in section 1.D., paragraphs A. 1) and A. 2) of the PLANNING INFORMATION in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015.

(2) At or before reaching 2,000 hours total time-in-service (TTIS) or within the next 150 hours TIS after December 15, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, do a detailed visual inspection and liquid penetrant inspection of the fin forward pickup plates for any evidence of cracking. Do the inspections following the procedures in sections 2.A. and 2.B. of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015.

(3) If cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace the fin forward pickup plates with new fin forward pickup plates, part number (P/N) 11-03375-1. Do the replacement following the procedures in section 2.C. of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015. This replacement terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

(4) If no cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, at or before reaching 6,000 hours TTIS or within the next 600 hours TIS after December 15, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, replace the fin forward pickup plates, P/N 11-10281-1, with P/N 11-03375-1. Do the replacement following the procedures in section 2.D. of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015. This replacement terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD .

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/750XL/18A, dated August 4, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3620-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand, phone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.aerospace.co.nz.

(4) You may view this service information at 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. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3620.

(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 Kansas City, Missouri, on November 2, 2015. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28338 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1008; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-064-AD; Amendment 39-18317; AD 2015-23-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters. This AD requires repetitively inspecting and lubricating the tail rotor (T/R) driveshaft splined fittings. This AD was prompted by a report that the T/R driveshaft can disconnect due to deterioration of the splined coupling. The actions are intended to detect and prevent excessive wear of the splined coupling, which could lead to failure of the T/R driveshaft and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES:

This AD is effective December 15, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

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-2015-1008; 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, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Kowalski, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7327; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

On April 22, 2015, at 80 FR 22436, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), a one-time inspection and lubrication of the T/R driveshaft splined fittings and replacing a splined fitting and the T/R driveshaft if the fitting has excessive wear. If the helicopter has a T/R driveshaft grease fitting installed, the NPRM also proposed to require inspecting each grease fitting for certain conditions and replacing the grease fitting if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require, at intervals not exceeding 100 hours TIS, inspecting the T/R driveshaft for straightness, twists, and scratches; inspecting each forward and aft T/R driveshaft splines for wear; and correcting the torque of each main transmission aft pinion nut. The proposed requirements were prompted by a report of excessive spline wear on the forward and aft T/R driveshaft spined fittings. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the T/R driveshaft and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated. We have revised the contact information throughout this Final Rule to reflect the new address.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (80 FR 22436, April 22, 2015).

FAA's Determination

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) B-299.1 for Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A helicopters; 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; and 269D ASB DB-041.1 for Model 269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated February 24, 2012. Each ASB describes procedures for cleaning, inspecting, and lubricating the forward and aft T/R driveshaft splined fittings and returning to Sikorsky any parts that exceed wear limits. Each ASB also requires implementing a 100-hour TIS recurring inspection of the T/R driveshaft, coupling and internal stop, coupling drive splines, and the pinion nut by following the procedures in each model helicopter's Handbook of Maintenance Instructions. 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.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

The Sikorsky ASBs require returning any splined fittings that exceed wear limits to Sikorsky, while this AD requires replacing those fittings and the T/R driveshaft.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 1,085 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting and lubricating the T/R driveshaft splined fittings requires 1.8 hours, for a cost per helicopter of $153 and a total cost of $166,005 for the fleet. Inspecting the grease fittings requires 0.25 hour, for a cost of $21 per helicopter and a total cost of $22,785 for the fleet. Inspecting the driveshaft, fittings, internal stops, and drive spines requires 1.8 hours, for a cost per helicopter of $153 and a total cost of $166,005 for the fleet, per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing the T/R driving spline and driveshaft requires 1.6 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $14,853, for a cost per helicopter of $14,989.

If required, replacing a T/R driven spline and driveshaft requires 1.5 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $14,836, for a cost per helicopter of $14,964.

If required, replacing a grease fitting requires about 0.25 work-hour, and required parts will cost about $5, for a cost per helicopter of $26.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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): 2015-23-01 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by Schweizer Aircraft Corporation) Helicopters: Amendment 39-18317; Docket No. FAA-2015-1008; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-064-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as insufficient lubrication of a tail rotor (T/R) driveshaft splined fitting. This condition could result in excessive wear of the T/R driveshaft splines, which could lead to failure of the T/R driveshaft and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective December 15, 2015.

(d) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

(1)Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):

(i) Inspect each T/R driveshaft splined fitting for a crack, a break, excessive wear, galling, spalling, chipping, corrosion, heat discoloration, and distortion by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(2), of Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) B-299.1 for Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A helicopters; 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; or 269D ASB DB-041.1 for Model 269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated February 24, 2012. If there is a crack, a break, excessive wear, galling, spalling, chipping, corrosion, heat discoloration, or distortion on any T/R driveshaft splined fitting, before further flight, replace the affected splined fitting and the T/R driveshaft.

(ii) If installed, inspect each T/R driveshaft grease fitting for looseness, presence of a check ball inside each fitting, and for proper operation and seating of each check ball. If any grease fitting is loose, missing a check ball, fails to properly operate, or if a check ball fails to seat, before further flight, replace the grease fitting.

(iii) Lubricate each driveshaft fitting by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(6), of Sikorsky 269 ASB B-299.1 for Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, and TH-55A helicopters; 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1 for Model 269C-1 helicopters; or 269D ASB DB-041.1 for Model 269D helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated February 24, 2012.

(2) Within 100 hours TIS after the inspections required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 100 hours TIS:

(i) Remove the driveshaft from the gearbox and clean any grease from each end fitting.

(ii) Inspect the driveshaft for straightness, a twist, and a scratch. If the driveshaft has any bends, twists, or scratches, before further flight, replace the driveshaft.

(iii) Inspect the internal splines of each forward and aft fitting and each internal stop for wear. If there is any wear, before further flight, replace the fitting.

(iv) Inspect the drive splines of each splined drive fitting for wear. If there is any wear, before further flight, replace the splined drive fitting.

(v) Loosen the aft frame clamp and apply a torque of 750 to 1,000 inch-pounds to each main transmission aft pinion nut.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Stephen Kowalski, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7327; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500, Tail Rotor Drive.

(h) 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) Sikorsky 269 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) B-299.1, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2012.

(ii) Sikorsky 269C-1 ASB C1B-036.1, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2012.

(iii) Sikorsky 269D ASB DB-041.1, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2012.

(3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected]

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

(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 Fort Worth, Texas, on October 30, 2015. James A. Grigg, Acting Assistant Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28313 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0574; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-258-AD; Amendment 39-18315; AD 2015-22-10] 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, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of skin disbonding on a composite side shell panel of a rudder. This AD requires an inspection to determine if any rudder composite side shell panel has been repaired, a thermography inspection of each rudder that has received this repair, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin disbonding on the rudder, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective December 15, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0574 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-2014-0574.

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 series airplanes, Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2014 (79 FR 49724). The NPRM was prompted by a report of skin disbonding on a composite side shell panel of a rudder. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if any rudder composite side shell panel has been repaired, a thermography inspection of each rudder that has received this repair, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin disbonding on the rudder, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0302, dated December 19, 2013 (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:

A case of skin disbonding was reported on a composite side shell panel of a rudder installed on an A310 aeroplane. Investigation results revealed that this disbonding had started from a skin panel area, previously repaired in-service, in accordance with Structural Repair Manual (SRM) instructions. The initial damage was identified as a disbonding between the core and the skin of the repaired area. This damage was not visually detectable and likely propagated during normal operation due to the variation of pressure during ground-air-ground cycles.

Composite rudder side shell panels are also installed on A320 family aeroplanes, which may have been repaired in-service using a similar method.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the rudder, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-55-1041 to provide instructions to inspect and correct any affected composite rudder side shell panels.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires [an inspection to determine if any rudder composite side shell panel has been repaired], a one-time [pulse] thermography inspection of each rudder that have received a composite rudder side shell panel repair, and, depending on the findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective and follow-up actions [related investigative actions and repetitive inspections].

The related investigative actions include elasticity laminate checker (ELCH) inspections, ultrasonic testing (UT) inspections, pulse thermography inspections, and tap test or woodpecker inspections. The repetitive inspections include ELCH inspections, UT inspections, pulse thermography inspections, and detailed inspections (certain repetitive inspections are required if hole restoration is done; certain other repetitive inspections are options for certain corrective actions). The corrective actions include core venting through the inner skin, replacements, restorations, and repairs.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0574-0007.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Extend Compliance Time for Rudder Inspections

Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) requested that we change the compliance time in the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) from 24 months to at least 42 months. DAL stated that the 24-month compliance time for accomplishing rudder inspections will be overly burdensome to operators of large fleets. DAL explained that it has 128 affected units, and if two full-time technicians were assigned for the inspection and rework, it would take over 7 years to accomplish the inspections. DAL added that a 42-month compliance time would allow proper planning, inspection, and rework of affected rudders and suggested that intervisual inspections could be used to support this compliance time extension.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time is based on a risk assessment. Some safety issues are more time-sensitive than others. We have considered the compliance time established by the EASA (the State of Design authority), and the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the identified unsafe condition and the likelihood of the occurrence of the unsafe condition, to determine the compliance time. However, under the provisions of paragraph (p)(1) of this AD, operators may apply for an extension of the compliance time by providing rationale explaining why a compliance time extension provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Requests To Revise Service Information and Use Alternative Sanding Procedure

United Airlines (UAL) and Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. Airbus also requested we allow credit for work accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012.

Airbus also requested we to revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to allow local sanding as an alternative to pulse thermography inspections for determining type, location, and size of repair, as described in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014. Airbus also requested we allow credit for work accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012.

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We agree to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. We have changed paragraphs (h), (i)(2), (j), (j)(1), (j)(2), (k), (l)(1), (l)(2), and (n) of this AD accordingly. We also agree to provide credit for work accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012. We have added new paragraph (o) to this AD to provide this credit, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

However, we disagree with Airbus's request to revise paragraph (h) of this AD to allow local sanding as an alternative to pulse thermography inspections for determining type, location, and size of repair. Based on Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, local sanding is an alternative to pulse thermography inspections only in certain specific cases, and it is possible that pulse thermography inspections would be required after the local sanding. However, operators may apply for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD, and must identify clearly the conditions for using local sanding in lieu of pulse thermography inspections.

Request To Remove Structural Repair Manual (SRM) Repair Prohibition

UAL requested we remove paragraph (n) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014), which prohibits repair in accordance with certain SRM procedures. UAL stated it is unnecessary to prohibit repair per these procedures since the procedures have been deactivated by Airbus.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Deactivation of SRM procedures by the manufacturer cannot ensure prevention of all operators from using the SRM procedures if they have not kept their manual current. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

UAL and DAL requested that we revise the estimated cost. The commenters stated that the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) understates the required costs and does not provided on-condition cost estimates. UAL and DAL provided some examples of costs incurred for previous repairs.

We disagree with the commenters' request. We indicated in the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) that we do not have information about the costs associated with the on-condition actions to mitigate the risk addressed in the NPRM. The on-condition costs can vary for each operator, depending upon inspection findings. Therefore, we have not provided on-condition cost estimates; instead, we provided our best estimate for the inspection costs based on the information received from the airframe manufacturer. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Requests To Remove Requirement for Reporting Undocumented Rudders

UAL and DAL requested that we remove paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014), which proposed to require sending to Airbus the records for each rudder and serial number of each rudder for which maintenance records are incomplete or unavailable.

Mr. Amaar Chaudhary requested we revise paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to require sending only the rudder serial number to Airbus. However, UAL stated that providing such rudder records is not reasonable because the records are embedded within various paper forms in separate archived collections spanning the airplane life of up to 19 years, and are not in a recoverable electronic format. UAL and DAL also explained that it is possible operators have not retained records for permanent rudder repairs earlier than the previous airplane overhaul per section 121.380 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.380).

We agree with the commenters' statements that paragraph (i)(1) of this AD should not require sending rudder repair records to Airbus. However, we disagree with the requests to not require submission of serial numbers of rudders without maintenance records to Airbus. Operators must report the rudders without maintenance records by serial number to Airbus to obtain related rudder manufacturing rework data. We have revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to specify sending to Airbus the serial number of each rudder for which maintenance records are not available or are incomplete.

Request To Remove Requirement To Inspect for Repair Status

DAL requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014) to remove the requirement to inspect repair records, but instead to require directly complying with the pulse thermography inspection proposed by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (g) of this AD establishes the requirements for paragraph (h) and (i) of this AD. An operator is required to inspect airplane maintenance records to determine if it needs to comply with paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD. In addition, the required reporting specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD will help determine the extent of the undocumented repairs in the affected fleet. Based on the results of these reports, we might determine that further corrective action is warranted. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Add Part Number Change, and Remove Part Installation Limitation

DAL requested that we require a part number change for post-inspection rudders to aid in configuration and AD compliance control, and remove the parts installation limitation in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014). DAL stated that, to prevent an unnecessary airplane out of service condition in the event a rudder change is required, allowing pre- and post-inspection rudders to be installed throughout the full compliance time would provide the same level of safety.

We disagree with the commenter's requests. Configuration control can be achieved by multiple methods and is unique to each operator's method of managing its fleet. Therefore, we have not been prescriptive regarding methods for configuration control. We also disagree to omit paragraph (m) of this AD (Parts Installation Limitation). The intent of the paragraph (m) of this AD is to ensure that, from the effective date of this AD, rudders with a known unsafe condition are not installed unless the corrective actions of paragraph (j) of this AD are completed. This clarification has been coordinated with the EASA. The compliance time is established based on overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence, fleet utilization, and availability of service information and parts. Therefore, the parts installation limitation should not be related to the compliance time associated with mitigating the unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph (m) of this AD to prevent, as of the effective date of this AD, installing a rudder with a known unsafe condition by specifying that the inspection requirements of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD must be done and the applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be done, except for rudders that meet the requirements of paragraph (k) of this AD.

Request To Use Alternative Testing Equipment

DAL, Thermal Wave Imaging, and Snell Group requested the use of alternate equipment for performing the pulse thermography inspection required in the NPRM (79 FR 49724, August 22, 2014). DAL stated that, at a recent Airlines for America non-destructive test (NDT) forum, evidence was presented supporting use of alternate equipment for performing pulse thermography inspections. DAL, Thermal Wave Imaging, and Snell Group explained that Airbus prohibits the use of alternate equipment other than what is recommended in the “NTM task 55-40-50-290-801-A-01.”

Thermal Wave Imaging stated that since Airbus is both the manufacturer of the airplane and the vendor of the inspection equipment, it appears that the non-allowance of equivalent equipment is a business decision intended to increase its revenue and lock out other companies from not only this inspection, but future thermography inspections that may be developed. Thermal Wave Imaging and Snell Group provided a comparison of the Airbus recommended Gecko System equipment with VoyageIR Pro equipment for performing the pulse thermography inspection.

We disagree with the commenters' request. The commenters did not provide any substantiation to support the use of alternate inspection equipment other than the equipment recommended by Airbus. We were informed by Airbus that they have recommended the use of specific equipment after evaluating its performance, which will facilitate mitigating the risks associated with the identified unsafe condition. However, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC for the use of alternate inspection equipment in accordance with the provision in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that the results from the alternate inspection equipment are conclusive to facilitate mitigating the risks associated with the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Approve Future Service Bulletin Revisions

DAL requested that future revisions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041 be considered as approved under EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for accomplishing the required AD actions.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Approval authority under EASA DOA, as stated in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, is only applicable to requirements in this AD to obtain corrective actions from the manufacturer and does not apply to approval of future service information. When referring to a specific service bulletin in an AD, using the phrase, “or later approved revisions,” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service bulletin as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (p)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

As stated previously, we have revised this final rule to reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. This service bulletin revision contains certain actions that are specified as Required for Compliance (RC).

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures and tests identified as RC in any service information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

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 49724, August 22, 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 49724, August 22, 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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the rudders for potential damage, and repair. 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 would take about 42 work-hours 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 $3,038,070, or $3,570 per product.

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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-2014-0574; 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): 2015-22-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-18315. Docket No. FAA-2014-0574; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-258-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective December 15, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, 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 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of skin disbonding on a composite side shell panel of a rudder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin disbonding on the rudder, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection To Determine Repair Status

Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the airplane maintenance records to determine if the rudder composite side shell panel has been repaired since first installation of the rudder on an airplane.

(h) Inspection of Certain Repaired Rudders

If the finding of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals that a rudder repair has been done as described in Figure A-GBBAA (Sheet 01 and 02) or Figure A-GBCAA (Sheet 02) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a pulse thermography inspection on the rudder, limited to the repaired area(s), to determine type, location, and size of the repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014.

(i) Inspection of Rudders With No Records or Incomplete Records

For each rudder for which maintenance records are not available or are incomplete: Do the actions required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.

(1) Not later than 3 months before accomplishment of the pulse thermography inspection required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, send the serial number of each rudder to Airbus.

(2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a pulse thermography inspection on complete rudder side shells to identify and mark the repair location, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014.

(j) Related Investigative Actions, Repetitive Inspections, and Corrective Actions

After accomplishing the inspections required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, as applicable: Depending on findings, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Findings are specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014.

(1) Do all applicable related investigative actions and corrective actions at the applicable times specified in tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5 in paragraph 1.E.(2), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, except as required by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(2) Do all applicable repetitive inspections of the restored and repaired areas at the applicable intervals specified in tables 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5 in paragraph 1.E.(2), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014.

(k) Airplanes Excluded From Certain Requirements

Airplanes fitted with a rudder having a serial number which is not in the range TS-1001 to TS-1639 inclusive, or TS-2001 to TS-5890 inclusive; or is not TS-5927; are not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, provided it is determined that no repairs have been done as described in the structural repair manual (SRM) procedures identified in Figure A-GBBAA (Sheet 01 and 02) or Figure A-GBCAA (Sheet 02) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, on the composite side shell panel of that rudder since first installation on an airplane.

(l) Exceptions to Service Information

(1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original Service Bulletin issue date,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(2) If any damage or fluid ingress is found during any inspection required by this AD and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus: Before further flight, repair 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.

(m) Parts Installation Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD: Except for rudders that meet the requirements of paragraph (k) of this AD, do not install a rudder unless the rudder is inspected prior to installation as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, and all applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD are done.

(n) Repair Prohibition

As of the effective date of this AD, do not accomplish a composite side shell panel repair on any rudder using an SRM procedure identified in Figure A-GBBAA (Sheet 01 and 02) or Figure A-GBCAA (Sheet 02) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014.

(o) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, dated November 26, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(p) 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(3)RCSteps in Service Information: Except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(4) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(q) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0302, dated December 19, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0574-0007.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (r)(3) and (r)(4) of this AD.

(r) 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 Service Bulletin A320-55-1041, Revision 01, dated February 24, 2014.

(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 28, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-28197 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No.: FAA-2015-0783; Amendment No. 97-1337] RIN 2120-AA65 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing a final rule that removes certain redundant or underutilized ground-based nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) and VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). On April 13, 2015, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to remove 736 procedures. After consideration of public comments and conducting an internal review, the FAA has decided to move forward with removing 334 procedures that did not receive public comment. The 198 procedures for which comments were received will be addressed in the future. The FAA also identified 191 procedures that were proposed for removal but that do not meet the criteria at this time. Those 191 procedures may be reevaluated at a later date; however, their removal is withdrawn from consideration in this rule. There are 13 procedures erroneously identified in the NPRM that were already in the process for removal and should not have been included in this proceeding. The FAA concluded that these procedures should continue in the separate proceeding and are not addressed in this final rule.

DATES:

This rule is effective December 10, 2015. The removal date of each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is as specified in the amendatory provisions.

ADDRESSES:

For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How To Obtain Additional Information” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Mark D. Adams, Aeronautical Navigation Products, AJV-5, Aeronautical Information Services, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. (MMAC), Bldg. 5, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169; Telephone (405) 954-9946; Email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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, sovereignty and use of airspace, and Subpart iii, Section 44701, general requirements. Under these sections, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace; to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)), and to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security (49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5)). This action is within the scope of that authority.

SIAPs are promulgated by rulemaking procedures and are incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), Subpart C—TERPS Procedures.

Background

On June 27, 2014, the FAA published criteria for determining whether to retain existing SIAPs (79 FR 36576). Removing identified ground-based NDB and VOR SIAPs is an integral part of right-sizing the quantity and type of procedures in the National Airspace System (NAS). As new technology facilitates the introduction of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approach procedures, the number of procedures available in the NAS has nearly doubled over the past decade. The complexity and cost of maintaining the existing ground based navigational infrastructure while expanding RNAV capability is not sustainable.

On April 13, 2015, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to remove certain SIAPs (80 FR 19577). The NPRM included a list of 736 procedures that were identified for cancellation and the comment period closed on May 28, 2015.

The following 13 SIAPs were proposed for cancellation in the NPRM. In reviewing the procedures and comments, the FAA realized that these 13 procedures were already being processed for cancellation and were at various stages. Additionally, the navigation facilities supporting a number of these procedures were either decommissioned or at various stages of that process. The inclusion of these procedures in the NPRM was in error, in that these procedures were already subject to prior agency commitments. The FAA notes three of these procedures received comment (VOR RWY 18 at Pryor Field Regional, Alabama (DCU); NDB RWY 14 at Montgomery County Airpark, Maryland (GAI); and NDB RWY 27 at Athens/Ben Epps, Georgia (AHN)) concerning lack of backup instrument flight procedures in case of instrument landing system failure, impacts to instrument flight training, and reduced airport access. The FAA confirms that for each of the three above affected procedures, the airports continue to maintain at least one other ground based procedure. In addition, there remain procedures available within a 20 nm radius of these airports for instrument flight training. The procedures are listed below with the associated Federal Register citation announcing the cancellation.

State Airport name ID Approach procedure cancellation information AZ Nogales Intl OLS NDB OR GPS-C (80 FR 50760; August 21, 2015). AZ Yuma MCAS/Yuma Intl NYL VOR/DME RNAV RWY 21R (Navy). AL Pryor Field Rgnl DCU VOR RWY 18 (Procedure to be canceled December 10, 2015). CA San Francisco Intl SFO VOR-B (80 FR 42023; July 16, 2015). GA Athens/Ben Epps AHN NDB RWY 27 (80 FR 61978; October 15, 2015). KS Great Bend Muni GBD NDB-A (80 FR 45604; July 31, 2015). MD Montgomery County Airpark GAI NDB RWY 14 (79 FR 40621; July 14, 2014). MI Ford IMT NDB RWY 1 (Procedure to be canceled December 10, 2015). NJ Teterboro TEB VOR/DME-A (80 FR 42023; July 16, 2015). WI Rice Lake Rgnl-Carl's Field RPD VOR RWY 01 (80 FR 45860; August 23, 2015). WI Central Wisconsin CWA VOR/DME RWY 35 (80 FR 61978; October 15, 2015). WI Alexander Field South Wood County ISW VOR/DME OR GPS-A (80 FR 61978 October 15, 2015). WI Stevens Point Muni STE VOR/DME RWY 21 (80 FR 61978; October 15, 2015).

The FAA proposed to cancel 191 procedures listed in the following table. However, after further consideration and a reevaluation of the policy criteria described in the June 27, 2014, statement of policy, the FAA has determined that these procedures do not meet the criteria at this time. Therefore these procedures will remain in effect and are not included in this final rule; however the FAA may reevaluate these procedures at a later date.

State Airport name ID Approach procedure AK BETTLES BTT VOR/DME RWY 01. AK SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ SIT VOR/DME-A. AK UNALAKLEET UNK VOR/DME-D. AL ANNISTON RGNL ANB NDB RWY 5. AL BESSEMER EKY VOR RWY 05. AL WALKER COUNTY-BEVILL FIELD JFX VOR/DME-A. AR WALNUT RIDGE RGNL ARG VOR-A. AR HOT SPRINGS/MEMORIAL FIELD HOT VOR Z RWY 05. AR WEST MEMPHIS MUNI AWM VOR/DME-A. AR BAXTER COUNTY BPK VOR-A. AR JONESBORO MUNI JBR VOR RWY 23. AR NORTH LITTLE ROCK MUNI ORK VOR RWY 35. AZ BISBEE DOUGLAS INTL DUG VOR RWY 17. AZ CASA GRANDE MUNI CGZ VOR RWY 05. AZ GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK GCN VOR RWY 03. CA JACK MC NAMARA FIELD CEC VOR RWY 12, formerly VOR RWY 11. CA MERCED RGNL/MACREADY FIELD MCE VOR RWY 30. CA REDDING MUNI RDD VOR RWY 34. CA SAN BERNARDINO INTL SBD NDB RWY 06. CA NAPA COUNTY APC VOR RWY 06. CA BUCHANAN FIELD CCR VOR RWY 19R. CA CHINO CNO VOR RWY 26R. CA MC CLELLAN-PALOMAR CRQ VOR-A. CA LONG BEACH/DAUGHERTY FIELD LGB VOR OR TACAN RWY 30. CA CASTLE MER VOR/DME RWY 31. CA MODESTO CITY-CO-HARRY SHAM FLD MOD VOR/DME RWY 28R. CA OXNARD OXR VOR RWY 25. CA SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE SAC VOR RWY 02. CA WATSONVILLE MUNI WVI VOR/DME-A. CO DURANGO-LA PLATA COUNTY DRO VOR/DME RWY 03. CO MONTROSE RGNL MTJ VOR/DME RWY 13. CO TELLURIDE RGNL TEX VOR/DME-A. CT DANBURY MUNI DXR VOR OR GPS-A. CT HARTFORD-BRAINARD HFD VOR-A. CT TWEED-NEW HAVEN HVN VOR RWY 02. FL NORTH PALM BEACH COUNTY GENERAL AVIATION F45 VOR RWY 08R. GA WAYCROSS-WARE COUNTY AYS VOR-A. GA BRUNSWICK GOLDEN ISLES BQK VOR/DME-B. GA ATLANTA RGNL FALCON FIELD FFC NDB RWY 31. GA LEE GILMER MEMORIAL GVL NDB RWY 05. GA PERRY-HOUSTON COUNTY PXE VOR-A. GA EAST GEORGIA RGNL SBO NDB RWY 14. GA HENRY TIFT MYERS TMA VOR RWY 28. IA AMES MUNI AMW VOR RWY 31. IA COUNCIL BLUFFS MUNI CBF VOR-A. IA KEOKUK MUNI EOK NDB RWY 14. IA KEOKUK MUNI EOK NDB RWY 26. IA SHENANDOAH MUNI SDA VOR/DME RWY 12. ID JOSLIN FIELD-MAGIC VALLEY RGNL TWF VOR RWY 26. IL AURORA MUNI ARR VOR RWY 36. IL ALBERTUS FEP VOR RWY 24. IL LANSING MUNI IGQ VOR-A. IL GREATER KANKAKEE IKK VOR RWY 22. IL CHICAGO EXECUTIVE PWK VOR RWY 16. IN ANDERSON MUNI-DARLINGTON FIELD AID VOR-A. IN PUTNAM COUNTY 4I7 VOR/DME-A. IN KENTLAND MUNI 50I VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 27. IN ANDERSON MUNI-DARLINGTON FIELD AID NDB RWY 30. IN WARSAW MUNI ASW VOR RWY 9. IN METTEL FIELD CEV VOR-A. IN DE KALB COUNTY GWB VOR OR GPS-A. IN CLARK RGNL JVY NDB RWY 18. IN PURDUE UNIVERSITY LAF VOR-A. IN LA PORTE MUNI PPO VOR-A. KS COLONEL JAMES JABARA AAO VOR-A. KS GREAT BEND MUNI GBD NDB RWY 35. KS RENNER FLD/GOODLAND MUNI/ GLD VOR RWY 30. KS INDEPENDENCE MUNI IDP VOR-A. KS LAWRENCE MUNI LWC VOR/DME-A. KY TAYLOR COUNTY AAS VOR/DME-A. LA GEORGE R CARR MEMORIAL AIR FLD BXA VOR/DME-A. LA FALSE RIVER RGNL HZR NDB RWY 36. MA BEVERLY MUNI BVY VOR RWY 16. MD HAGERSTOWN RGNL-RICHARD A. HENSEN FIELD HGR VOR RWY 09. MD OCEAN CITY MUNI OXB VOR-A. MI HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL CMX VOR RWY 25. MI COLEMAN A YOUNG MUNI DET NDB RWY 15. MI COLEMAN A YOUNG MUNI DET VOR RWY 33. MI DELTA COUNTY ESC VOR RWY 36. MI GERALD R FORD INTL GRR VOR RWY 17. MI FORD IMT VOR RWY 31. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 35. MI WEST MICHIGAN RGNL, formerly TULIP CITY BIV VOR-A. MI W K KELLOGG BTL NDB RWY 23R. MI SAGINAW COUNTY H.W. BROWNE HYX VOR/DME-A. MI MENOMINEE-MARINETTE TWIN COUNTY MNM VOR-A. MI ST CLAIR COUNTY INTL PHN NDB RWY 04. MI PELLSTON RGNL AIRPORT OF EMMET COUNTY PLN VOR RWY 23. MN FALLS INTL INL VOR RWY 13. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF VOR RWY 13. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF VOR RWY 31. MN CHANDLER FIELD AXN VOR RWY 22. MN GRAND RAPIDS/ITASCA CO-GORDON NEWSTROM FLD GPZ VOR RWY 34. MN WARROAD INTL MEMORIAL RRT NDB RWY 31. MN SOUTH ST PAUL MUNI-RICHARD E. FLEMING FIELD SGS NDB-B. MO FARMINGTON RGNL FAM VOR/DME-A. MO KIRKSVILLE RGNL IRK VOR-A. MO MEXICO MEMORIAL MYJ VOR/DME RWY 24. MS GRENADA MUNI GNF NDB RWY 13. MS JOHN BELL WILLIAMS JVW NDB RWY 12. NC JOHNSTON COUNTY JNX NDB RWY 03. NC CLINTON-SAMPSON COUNTY CTZ VOR/DME-A. NC WAYNE EXECUTIVE JETPORT GWW VOR-A. NC HICKORY RGNL HKY VOR/DME RWY 24. NC HENDERSON-OXFORD HNZ NDB RWY 6. NC TRIANGLE NORTH EXECUTIVE LHZ VOR/DME-A. NC ALBERT J. ELLIS OAJ NDB RWY 5. NC WARREN FIELD OCW VOR/DME RWY 05. ND DEVILS LAKE RGNL DVL VOR RWY 31. ND HECTOR INTL FAR VOR OR TACAN RWY 36. ND GRAND FORKS INTL GFK VOR RWY 35L. ND JAMESTOWN RGNL JMS VOR RWY 31. ND MINOT INTL MOT VOR RWY 13. ND MINOT INTL MOT VOR RWY 31. NE BREWSTER FIELD HDE VOR/DME-A. NH SKYHAVEN DAW VOR/DME-A. NH DILLANT-HOPKINS EEN VOR RWY 02. NH LACONIA MUNI LCI NDB RWY 8. NH LEBANON MUNI LEB VOR RWY 25. NJ TETERBORO TEB VOR RWY 24. NJ CAPE MAY COUNTY WWD VOR-A. NM TUCUMCARI MUNI TCC VOR RWY 21. NM CAVERN CITY AIR TRML CNM VOR RWY 32L. NM GRANT COUNTY SVC VOR-A. NV RENO/TAHOE INTL RNO VOR-D. NY WATERTOWN INTL ART VOR RWY 07. NY REPUBLIC FRG NDB RWY 1. NY GENESEE COUNTY GVQ VOR/DME-A. NY BROOKHAVEN HWV VOR RWY 06. NY CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY/JAMESTOWN JHW VOR RWY 25. OH ASHLAND COUNTY 3G4 VOR-A. OH BELLEFONTAINE RGNL EDJ VOR/DME RWY 25. OH FAIRFIELD COUNTY LHQ VOR OR GPS-A. OH LORAIN COUNTY RGNL LPR VOR-A. OH MARION MUNI MNN VOR-A. OH OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY OSU NDB RWY 09R. OH BOLTON FIELD TZR NDB RWY 4. OH OHIO UNIVERSITY SNYDER FIELD UNI NDB RWY 25. OH NEWARK-HEATH VTA VOR-A. OK SUNDANCE AIRPARK HSD VOR RWY 17. PA SOMERSET COUNTY 2G9 NDB RWY 25. PA LANCASTER LNS VOR/DME RWY 08. SC GREENVILLE DOWNTOWN GMU NDB RWY 1. SC AIKEN MUNI AIK NDB RWY 25. SC ANDERSON RGNL AND VOR RWY 05. SC MARION COUNTY MAO VOR/DME-A. SC SUMTER MUNI SMS NDB RWY 23. SD ABERDEEN RGNL ABR VOR RWY 31. SD HURON RGNL HON VOR RWY 12. TN KNOXVILLE DOWNTOWN ISLAND DKX VOR/DME-B. TN MOORE-MURRELL MOR NDB RWY 5. TN UPPER CUMBERLAND RGNL SRB NDB RWY 04. TN TULLAHOMA RGNL/WM NORTHERN FIELD THA NDB RWY 18. TX DALHART MUNI DHT VOR RWY 17. TX BAY CITY MUNI BYY VOR/DME-A. TX C DAVID CAMPBELL FIELD-CORSICANA MUNI CRS VOR/DME-A. TX DEL RIO INTL DRT VOR-A. TX DENTON MUNI DTO NDB RWY 18. TX ARLINGTON MUNI GKY VOR/DME RWY 34. TX SCHOLES INTL AT GALVESTON GLS VOR RWY 14. TX SAN MARCOS MUNI HYI NDB RWY 13. TX SKYLARK FIELD ILE VOR-A. TX PALESTINE MUNI PSN VOR/DME RWY 18. TX RUSK COUNTY RFI VOR/DME-A. TX SUGAR LAND RGNL SGR VOR/DME-A. TX SHEPPARD AFB/WICHITA FALLS MUNI SPS NDB RWY 33L. TX SHEPPARD AFB/WICHITA FALLS MUNI SPS VOR-D. TX COLLIN COUNTY RGNL AT MC KINNEY TKI VOR/DME-A. TX HUNTSVILLE MUNI UTS VOR/DME-A. UT DELTA MUNI DTA VOR RWY 35. UT CARBON COUNTY RGNL/BUCK DAVIS FIELD PUC VOR/DME RWY 01. VA VIRGINIA TECH/MONTGOMERY EXECUTIVE BCB NDB-A. VA ACCOMACK COUNTY MFV VOR/DME RWY 03. VA HANOVER COUNTY MUNI OFP VOR RWY 16. VA STAFFORD RGNL RMN VOR RWY 33. VA SHENANDOAH VALLEY RGNL SHD NDB RWY 05. VI CYRIL E KING STT VOR-A. VT EDWARD F KNAPP STATE MPV VOR RWY 35. WA SPOKANE INTL GEG VOR RWY 03. WA ARLINGTON MUNI AWO NDB RWY 34. WA RICHLAND RLD VOR/DME-A. WA FELTS FIELD SFF VOR RWY 04L. WI LAKELAND/NOBLE F. LEE MEM. FIELD ARV NDB RWY 28. WI BARABOO WISCONSIN DELLS DLL VOR-A. WI EAGLE RIVER UNION EGV VOR/DME RWY 04. WI TRI-COUNTY RGNL LNR VOR-A. WI JOHN H BATTEN RAC VOR RWY 04. WI SHEBOYGAN COUNTY MEMORIAL SBM VOR RWY 22. WI WAUKESHA COUNTY UES VOR-A. WV ONA AIRPARK 12V VOR-A. WV FAIRMONT MUNI-FRANKMAN FIELD 4G7 VOR/DME-A.

Lastly, the FAA received comments on 198 SIAPs that are still under review. Once the agency has made a determination on those procedures, and if warranted, the FAA will issue a final rule cancelling any subject procedures. For the remaining 335 SIAPs proposed in the NPRM upon which no comments were received, the FAA has decided to proceed with cancellation of those procedures.

The Amendment

SIAPs and associated supporting data adopted or removed by the FAA are documented on FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5, which are incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97. The following procedures did not receive any comments and the FAA has determined that they should be removed consistent with FAA policy on maintaining instrument approach procedures in the NAS. Additionally, the list can be viewed on the Aeronautical Information Services IFP Announcements and Reports Web page at the following link, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/reports/.

Conclusion

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

Additional Information A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Persons requesting additional information must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103(b), and 44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2015. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

2. Part 97 is amended by removing the specified procedures as follows:

The following procedures will be removed effective December 10, 2015.

State Airport name ID Approach procedure AK ATQASUK EDWARD BURNELL SR MEMORIAL ATK NDB RWY 24. AK COLD BAY CDB VOR/DME OR TACAN-A. AK KOYUK ALFRED ADAMS KKA NDB/DME RWY 01. AK MC GRATH MCG VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16. AZ NOGALES INTL OLS VOR OR GPS-A. CA CHICO MUNI CIC VOR/DME RWY 13L. CA ONTARIO INTL ONT VOR/DME RWY 08R. CA LAKE TAHOE TVL VOR/DME OR GPS-A. CT IGOR I SIKORSKY MEMORIAL BDR VOR RWY 06. CT IGOR I SIKORSKY MEMORIAL BDR VOR RWY 29. FL ST PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER INTL PIE VOR/DME RWY 18L. FL SARASOTA/BRADENTON INTL SRQ VOR RWY 32. IA NORTHEAST IOWA RGNL CCY NDB RWY 12. IL DUPAGE DPA VOR RWY 10. IN ELKHART MUNI EKM VOR RWY 27. IN ELKHART MUNI EKM VOR/DME RWY 36. KS INDEPENDENCE MUNI IDP NDB RWY 35. MA NANTUCKET MEMORIAL ACK NDB RWY 24. MA GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN INTL BOS VOR/DME RWY 15R. MA GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN INTL BOS VOR/DME RWY 27. MA GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN INTL BOS VOR/DME RWY 33L. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHALL BWI VOR/DME RWY 15L. ME DEWITT FLD, OLD TOWN MUNI OLD NDB RWY 22. MI GAYLORD RGNL GLR NDB RWY 9. MI JACKSON COUNTY-REYNOLDS FIELD JXN NDB RWY 24. MI CHERRY CAPITAL TVC NDB RWY 28. MN BAUDETTE INTL BDE VOR RWY 30. MN BRAINERD LAKES RGNL BRD NDB RWY 23. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF NDB RWY 31. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC NDB RWY 19. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC VOR RWY 03. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC VOR RWY 19. MO CHARLES B. WHEELER DOWNTOWN MKC VOR RWY 21. MT FRANK WILEY FIELD MLS VOR/DME RWY 04. ND SLOULIN FLD INTL ISN VOR/DME RWY 29. ND JAMESTOWN RGNL JMS NDB RWY 31. NE KEARNEY RGNL EAR NDB RWY 36. NE COLUMBUS MUNI OLU VOR/DME RWY 32. NM LEA COUNTY RGNL HOB VOR OR TACAN RWY 03. NY SULLIVAN COUNTY INTL MSV NDB RWY 15. NY GRIFFISS INTL RME VOR/DME RWY 33. OH CINCINNATI MUNI AIRPORT-LUNKEN FIELD LUK NDB RWY 21L. OK BARTLESVILLE MUNI BVO VOR RWY 17. OR CORVALLIS MUNI CVO NDB RWY 17. SC GREENWOOD COUNTY GRD VOR RWY 27. SD ABERDEEN RGNL ABR NDB RWY 31. SD WATERTOWN RGNL ATY NDB RWY 35. SD CHAN GURNEY MUNI YKN NDB RWY 31. TN DYERSBURG RGNL DYR VOR/DME RWY 04. TX ABILENE RGNL ABI NDB RWY 35R. TX DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTL DFW VOR RWY 13R. TX ODESSA-SCHLEMEYER FIELD ODO NDB RWY 20. VA NEWPORT NEWS/WILLIAMSBURG INTL PHF NDB RWY 02. WI APPLETON INTL, formerly OUTAGAMIE COUNTY RGNL ATW VOR/DME RWY 03. WI APPLETON INTL, formerly OUTAGAMIE COUNTY RGNL ATW VOR/DME RWY 21. WI MIDDLETON MUNI-MOREY FIELD C29 VOR RWY 10. WI CHIPPEWA VALLEY RGNL EAU NDB RWY 22.

The following procedures will be removed effective February 04, 2016.

State Airport name ID Approach procedure AK DILLINGHAM DLG VOR/DME RWY 19. AK FORT YUKON FYU VOR/DME OR TACAN-A. AK GULKANA GKN VOR/DME RWY 33. AK MIDDLETON ISLAND MDO VOR/DME RWY 20. AK RALPH WIEN MEMORIAL OTZ VOR/DME Y RWY 27. AK YAKUTAT YAK VOR/DME RWY 11. AL TALLADEGA MUNI ASN VOR/DME RWY 04. AL CRAIG FIELD SEM NDB RWY 33. AR BOONE COUNTY HRO VOR-A. AR LAKE VILLAGE MUNI M32 VOR/DME-B. AR ROGERS MUNI-CARTER FIELD ROG NDB RWY 20. AR ROGERS MUNI-CARTER FIELD ROG VOR/DME RWY 20. AR BENTONVILLEMUNI/LOUISEMTHADENFIELD VBT VOR/DME-B. CA MC CLELLAN AIRFIELD MCC VOR/DME RWY 16. CA NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC VOR RWY 12R. CA NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC VOR/DME RWY 30L. CA NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SJC VOR/DME RWY 30R. CT TWEED-NEW HAVEN HVN VOR-A. FL APALACHICOLA RGNL-CLEVE RANDOLPH FIELD AAF NDB RWY 32. FL JACKSONVILLE EXECUTIVE AT CRAIG CRG VOR/DME RWY 32. FL SAINT LUCIE COUNTY INTL FPR NDB-A. FL NORTHEAST FLORIDA RGNL SGJ VOR RWY 31. GA AUGUSTA RGNL AT BUSH FIELD AGS VOR/DME RWY 17. GA CRISP COUNTY-CORDELE CKF NDB RWY 10. GA DANIEL FIELD DNL NDB/DME-C. GA THOMSON-MCDUFFIE COUNTY HQU NDB RWY 10. GA MACON DOWNTOWN MAC VOR/DME-B. GA HARRIS COUNTY PIM NDB RWY 09. GA HENRY TIFT MYERS TMA VOR RWY 33. IA WATERLOO RGNL ALO VOR/DME RWY 30. IA SIBLEY MUNI ISB NDB OR GPS RWY 17. IA SIOUX GATEWAY/COL. BUD DAY FIELD SUX NDB RWY 13. IA SIOUX GATEWAY/COL. BUD DAY FIELD SUX NDB RWY 31. ID JOSLIN FIELD-MAGIC VALLEY RGNL TWF NDB RWY 26. IL FRASCA FIELD C16 VOR/DME OR GPS-B. IL OLNEY-NOBLE OLY VOR/DME-A. IL QUINCY RGNL-BALDWIN FIELD UIN VOR/DME RWY 22. IN SKY KING 3I3 VOR-B. IN MONROE COUNTY BMG VOR/DME RWY 24. IN MONROE COUNTY BMG VOR/DME RWY 35. IN NAPPANEE MUNI C03 VOR/DME OR GPS-A. IN EAGLE CREEK AIRPARK EYE NDB RWY 21. IN GREENWOOD MUNI HFY NDB RWY 1. IN NEW CASTLE-HENRY COUNTY MUNI UWL NDB RWY 27. KS RENNER FLD/GOODLAND MUNI/ GLD VOR/DME RWY 30. LA SHREVEPORT DOWNTOWN DTN VOR RWY 14. LA HOUMA-TERREBONNE HUM VOR RWY 12. LA FALSE RIVER RGNL HZR VOR/DME-A. LA ABBEVILLE CHRIS CRUSTA MEMORIAL IYA VOR/DME-A. LA HARRY P WILLIAMS MEMORIAL PTN VOR/DME-A. MA MINUTE MAN AIR FIELD 6B6 NDB-A. MA NORTHAMPTON 7B2 VOR-A. MA FITCHBURG MUNI FIT NDB RWY 20. MA MARSHFIELD MUNI-GEORGE HARLOW FIELD GHG NDB RWY 6. MA LAWRENCE MUNI LWM NDB RWY 5. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHALL BWI VOR RWY 28. ME BANGOR INTL BGR VOR/DME RWY 15. ME BANGOR INTL BGR VOR/DME RWY 33. ME NORTHERN MAINE RGNL ARPT AT PRESQUE ISLE PQI VOR/DME RWY 01. MI ALPENA COUNTY RGNL APN NDB RWY 1. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO NDB RWY 35. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 05. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 17. MI KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTL AZO VOR RWY 23. MI W K KELLOGG BTL VOR RWY 23R. MI CHIPPEWA COUNTY INTL CIU VOR-A. MI HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL CMX VOR RWY 31. MI GAYLORD RGNL GLR VOR RWY 09. MI GERALD R. FORD INTL GRR VOR RWY 35. MI GOGEBIC-IRON COUNTY IWD VOR/DME RWY 27. MI MUSKEGON COUNTY MKG VOR-A. MI MENOMINEE-MARINETTE TWIN COUNTY MNM NDB RWY 3. MI LIVINGSTON COUNTY SPENCER J. HARDY OZW NDB RWY 13. MI PELLSTON RGNL AIRPORT OF EMMET COUNTY PLN VOR/DME RWY 05. MI SAWYER INTL SAW NDB RWY 01. MI SAWYER INTL SAW VOR RWY 01. MN ANOKA COUNTY-BLAINE ARPT(JANES FIELD) ANE VOR/DME RWY 27. MN AUSTIN MUNI AUM VOR RWY 35. MN AUSTIN MUNI AUM VOR/DME-A. MN BEMIDJI RGNL BJI VOR/DME RWY 31. MN FERGUS FALLS MUNI-EINAR MICKELSON FLD FFM NDB RWY 31. MN FERGUS FALLS MUNI-EINAR MICKELSON FLD FFM VOR RWY 35. MN FAIRMONT MUNI FRM VOR/DME RWY 31. MN FALLS INTL INL NDB RWY 31. MN FALLS INTL INL VOR/DME RWY 31. MN SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA RGNL MARSHALL/RYAN FLD MML VOR/DME RWY 30. MN WINONA MUNI-MAX CONRAD FLD ONA NDB RWY 30. MN WINONA MUNI-MAX CONRAD FLD ONA VOR-A. MN WORTHINGTON MUNI OTG NDB RWY 29. MN OWATONNA DEGNER RGNL OWA VOR/DME RWY 30. MN PARK RAPIDS MUNI-KONSHOK FIELD PKD NDB RWY 31. MN ST CLOUD RGNL STC VOR/DME RWY 13. MN THIEF RIVER FALLS RGNL TVF VOR/DME RWY 31. MO KIRKSVILLE RGNL IRK VOR/DME-B. MO SIKESTON MEMORIAL MUNI SIK VOR/DME RWY 02. MS GREENVILLE MID-DELTA GLH VOR/DME RWY 18L. MS HARDY-ANDERS FIELD NATCHEZ-ADAMS COUNTY HEZ VOR/DME RWY 13. MS MCCHAREN FIELD M83 VOR-A. NC PIEDMONT TRIAD INTL GSO VOR RWY 05R. NC HARNETT RGNL JETPORT HRJ VOR/DME RWY 05. ND HECTOR INTL FAR VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 18. ND SLOULIN FLD INTL ISN NDB RWY 29. NE BEATRICE MUNI BIE VOR RWY 14. NE CAMBRIDGE MUNI CSB NDB RWY 32. NE EPPLEY AIRFIELD OMA VOR/DME RWY 32L. NH MANCHESTER MHT VOR/DME RWY 17. NJ MILLVILLE MUNI MIV NDB RWY 14. NJ HAMMONTON MUNI N81 VOR-A. NM ALAMOGORDO-WHITE SANDS RGNL ALM VOR/DME RWY 03. NM GRANT COUNTY SVC VOR/DME-B. NV BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAM VOR-A. NV ELY ARPT/YELLAND FLD/ ELY VOR-A. NY GREATER BINGHAMTON/EDWIN A LINK FIELD BGM VOR/DME RWY 28. NY DUTCHESS COUNTY POU VOR/DME RWY 06. NY GREATER ROCHESTER INTL ROC VOR/DME RWY 04. OH JAMES M. COX DAYTON INTL DAY NDB RWY 6R. OH CLERMONT COUNTY I69 NDB RWY 22. OH SPRINGFIELD-BECKLEY MUNI SGH VOR RWY 24. OK DURANT RGNL-EAKER FIELD DUA VOR/DME RWY 17. OK CLAREMORE RGNL GCM VOR/DME-A. SC AIKEN MUNI AIK VOR/DME-A. SD WATERTOWN RGNL ATY VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 35. TX C DAVID CAMPBELL FIELD-CORSICANA MUNI CRS VOR/DME-B. TX DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTL DFW VOR RWY 31L. TX DEL RIO INTL DRT NDB RWY 13. TX WICHITA VALLEY F14 VOR/DME-C. TX GRANBURY RGNL GDJ VOR/DME-A. TX EAST TEXAS RGNL GGG NDB RWY 13. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME RWY 04. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME RWY 30L. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME-E. TX SULPHUR SPRINGS MUNI SLR VOR-A. UT SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16L. UT SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 17. UT SALT LAKE CITY INTL SLC VOR/DME RWY 34R. VA NORFOLK INTL ORF VOR RWY 23. VA NORFOLK INTL ORF VOR/DME RWY 05. VA NEWPORT NEWS/WILLIAMSBURG INTL PHF NDB RWY 20. VT RUTLAND-SOUTHERN VERMONT RGNL RUT VOR/DME RWY 19. WA WALLA WALLA RGNL ALW NDB RWY 20. WA BOWERMAN HQM VOR/DME RWY 24. WI CENTRAL WISCONSIN CWA VOR OR GPS-A. WI AUSTIN STRAUBEL INTL GRB VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 36. WI LA CROSSE MUNI LSE NDB RWY 18.

The following procedures will be removed effective March 31, 2016.

State Airport name ID Approach procedure AK EMMONAK ENM VOR RWY 34. AK MC GRATH MCG VOR-A. AK RALPH WIEN MEMORIAL OTZ VOR RWY 09. AK RALPH WIEN MEMORIAL OTZ VOR RWY 27. AK SAND POINT SDP NDB/DME RWY 13. AK SHISHMAREF SHH NDB RWY 23. AL AUBURN UNIVERSITY RGNL AUO VOR RWY 29. AL NORTHWEST ALABAMA RGNL MSL VOR RWY 29. AR SOUTH ARKANSAS RGNL AT GOODWIN FIELD ELD VOR RWY 22. AR DRAKE FIELD FYV VOR-A. AR THOMPSON-ROBBINS HEE VOR RWY 17. AR GRIDERFIELD PBF VOR RWY 18. AR STUTTGART MUNI SGT VOR/DME-A. CA MEADOWS FIELD BFL VOR/DME RWY 30R. CA SACRAMENTO MATHER MHR VOR/DME RWY 22L. CA SAN FRANCISCO INTL SFO VOR RWY 19L. CA CHARLES M. SCHULZ-SONOMA COUNTY STS VOR/DME RWY 32. DC RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA VOR RWY 15, formerly VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 15. DC RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA VOR RWY 19, formerly VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 19. DC RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL DCA VOR/DME RWY 01. FL FORT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD INTL FLL VOR RWY 28R. FL ORLANDO INTL MCO VOR/DME RWY 36L. FL ORLANDO INTL MCO VOR/DME RWY 36R. GA SOUTHWEST GA. RGNL ABY NDB RWY 4. IA WATERLOO RGNL ALO VOR RWY 36. IA CLINTON MUNI CWI VOR RWY 03. IA OTTUMWA RGNL OTM VOR RWY 31. IA SIOUX GATEWAY/COL. BUD DAY FIELD SUX VOR OR TACAN RWY 31. IA NEWTON MUNI TNU VOR RWY 32. ID COEUR D'ALENE-PAPPY BOYINGTON FIELD COE VOR RWY 06. ID IDAHO FALLS RGNL IDA NDB RWY 20. ID LEWISTON-NEZ PERCE COUNTY LWS VOR RWY 26. IL VERMILION REGIONAL DNV VOR RWY 21. IL DUPAGE DPA VOR RWY 2L. IL GALESBURG MUNI GBG VOR RWY 03. IL LEWIS UNIVERSITY LOT VOR RWY 09. IL LAWRENCEVILLE-VINCENNES INTL LWV VOR RWY 18. IL QUINCY RGNL-BALDWIN FIELD UIN VOR RWY 04. IN WARSAW MUNI ASW VOR RWY 27. IN GOSHEN MUNI GSH VOR RWY 27. IN DE KALB COUNTY GWB VOR RWY 09. IN DELAWARE COUNTY RGNL MIE VOR RWY 32. IN RICHMOND MUNI RID VOR RWY 24. IN RICHMOND MUNI RID VOR RWY 33. KS LIBERAL MID-AMERICA RGNL LBL VOR RWY 35. MA LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD BED NDB RWY 29. MA MARTHAS VINEYARD MVY VOR RWY 24. MA ORANGE MUNI ORE NDB RWY 01. MA ORANGE MUNI ORE NDB RWY 32. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHALL BWI VOR RWY 10. MD BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTL THURGOOD MARSHALL BWI VOR/DME RWY 33L. MD SALISBURY-OCEAN CITY WICOMICO RGNL SBY VOR RWY 23. MD SALISBURY-OCEAN CITY WICOMICO RGNL SBY VOR RWY 32. ME LITTLEBROOK AIR PARK 3B4 NDB-B. ME SANFORD SEACOAST RGNL SFM VOR RWY 07. MI ALPENA COUNTY RGNL APN VOR RWY 01. MI SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN RGNL BEH NDB RWY 28. MI HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL CMX VOR RWY 13. MI DELTA COUNTY ESC VOR RWY 09. MI DELTA COUNTY ESC VOR RWY 27. MI MANISTEE CO.-BLACKER MBL VOR RWY 28. MI CUSTER TTF VOR RWY 03. MN WILLMAR MUNI-JOHN L RICE FIELD BDH VOR RWY 13. MN FAIRMONT MUNI FRM VOR RWY 13. MN FAIRMONT MUNI FRM VOR RWY 31. MN RANGE RGNL HIB VOR RWY 13. MN RANGE RGNL HIB VOR RWY 31. MN LITCHFIELD MUNI LJF VOR/DME RWY 13. MN MANKATO RGNL MKT VOR RWY 33. MN WORTHINGTON MUNI OTG VOR RWY 36. MN PARK RAPIDS MUNI-KONSHOK FIELD PKD VOR RWY 31. MT WOKAL FIELD/GLASGOW INTL GGW NDB RWY 30. NC TARBORO-EDGECOMBE ETC NDB RWY 27. NC COASTAL CAROLINA REGIONAL EWN VOR RWY 04. NC MICHAEL J. SMITH FIELD MRH NDB RWY 21. ND DEVILS LAKE RGNL DVL VOR RWY 21. NE MC COOK BEN NELSON RGNL MCK VOR RWY 12. NE MC COOK BEN NELSON RGNL MCK VOR RWY 22. NE SEARLE FIELD OGA VOR RWY 08. NE SEARLE FIELD OGA VOR RWY 26. NE SEARLE FIELD OGA VOR/DME RWY 08. NE SIDNEY MUNI/LLOYD W. CARR FIELD SNY VOR RWY 13. NE SIDNEY MUNI/LLOYD W. CARR FIELD SNY VOR RWY 31. NH BERLIN RGNL BML VOR-B. NH MANCHESTER MHT VOR RWY 35. NH PORTSMOUTH INTL AT PEASE PSM VOR RWY 16. NH PORTSMOUTH INTL AT PEASE PSM VOR RWY 34. NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL EWR VOR/DME RWY 22L. NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL EWR VOR/DME RWY 22R. NJ SOLBERG-HUNTERDON N51 VOR-A. NM FOUR CORNERS RGNL FMN VOR RWY 23. NM FOUR CORNERS RGNL FMN VOR RWY 25. NM LAS VEGAS MUNI LVS VOR RWY 02. NV DERBY FIELD LOL VOR OR GPS-C. NY GREATER BINGHAMTON/EDWIN A LINK FIELD BGM VOR RWY 10. NY WESTCHESTER COUNTY HPN VOR/DME-A. NY ITHACA TOMPKINS RGNL ITH VOR RWY 32. NY LA GUARDIA LGA VOR/DME-G. NY LA GUARDIA LGA VOR-F. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN NDB RWY 22R. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN NDB RWY 4L. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN VOR RWY 04L. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN VOR RWY 22R. OH AIRBORNE AIRPARK ILN VOR/DME RWY 22R. OH NEWARK-HEATH VTA NDB OR GPS RWY 9. OK ADA MUNI ADH VOR/DME-A. OK UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA WESTHEIMER OUN NDB RWY 03. OK UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA WESTHEIMER OUN NDB RWY 35. OK STILLWATER RGNL SWO NDB RWY 17. OR SOUTHWEST OREGON RGNL OTH NDB RWY 04. SC DILLON COUNTY DLC NDB RWY 07. SC HARTSVILLE RGNL HVS NDB RWY 3. SD MITCHELL MUNI MHE VOR RWY 30. SD CHAN GURNEY MUNI YKN VOR RWY 31. TN FAYETTEVILLE MUNI FYM NDB RWY 20. TN MCMINN COUNTY MMI NDB RWY 20. TX BOWIE MUNI 0F2 NDB RWY 35. TX BROWNWOOD RGNL BWD VOR RWY 17. TX DEL RIO INTL DRT VOR/DME-B. TX KERRVILLE MUNI/LOUIS SCHREINER FIELD ERV NDB RWY 30. TX WILLIAM P HOBBY HOU VOR/DME RWY 35. TX DALLAS EXECUTIVE RBD VOR RWY 31. TX LA PORTE MUNI T41 NDB RWY 30. TX TYLER POUNDS RGNL TYR VOR/DME RWY 22. VA LYNCHBURG RGNL/PRESTON GLENN FLD LYH VOR RWY 04. WI KENOSHA RGNL ENW VOR RWY 15. WI ALEXANDER FIELD SOUTH WOOD COUNTY ISW NDB RWY 30. WI MARSHFIELD MUNI MFI NDB RWY 5. WI MANITOWOC COUNTY MTW VOR RWY 17. WI LAWRENCE J TIMMERMAN MWC VOR RWY 15L. WI RHINELANDER-ONEIDA COUNTY RHI VOR RWY 09. WV RALEIGH COUNTY MEMORIAL BKW VOR RWY 19. WV MERCER COUNTY BLF VOR RWY 23.
[FR Doc. 2015-28478 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 730 General Information CFR Correction

In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 208, in § 730.8, in paragraph (c), remove the first instance of the phrase: “General information including assistance in understanding the EAR, information on how to obtain forms, electronic services, publications, and information on training programs offered by BIS, is available from the Office of Export Services at the following locations:”

[FR Doc. 2015-28285 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 734 Scope of the Export Administration Regulations CFR Correction

In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 233, in § 734.4, in paragraph (a)(4), add the term “ECCN” before “9E003.a.1”.

[FR Doc. 2015-28286 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 41 [Public Notice: 9343] RIN 1400-AD80 Visas: Interview Waiver Authority AGENCY:

State Department.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule is promulgated to clarify the circumstances in which a consular officer and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services may waive the requirement for a nonimmigrant visa interview.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lauren A. Boquin, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, 600 19th St. NW., Washington, DC 20006, (202) 485-7638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why is the Department promulgating this rule?

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), at section 222(h), sets out detailed requirements for in-person interviews of applicants for nonimmigrant visas. This rule amends 22 CFR 41.102 to be consistent with INA 222(h). It is also amended to reflect delegation of the Secretary of State's authority under INA section 222(h)(1)(C)(ii) to waive visa interviews upon a determination that a waiver is necessary as a result of unusual or emergent circumstances. In a delegation of authority dated August 20, 2012 (77 FR 52379), the Secretary authorized the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs to waive in-person visa interviews under such circumstances, which would include humanitarian crises or medical emergencies. The delegation also included authority to re-delegate, and the authority was re-delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services.

Paragraph (b) of section 41.102 is amended to add Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) nonimmigrants classifiable as E-1 visa holders, since such nonimmigrants are equivalent to diplomatic or official visa holders. Paragraph (c) was inserted to reflect the Secretary's undelegated authority to waive the personal appearance requirement in the national interest. The amended paragraph (d) of this regulation reflects the full scope of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services' waiver authority, consistent with the above-referenced delegations. Paragraph (e) revised the prior paragraph (d) to reflect the revised structure of the regulation and to be consistent with the authority in INA 222(h) on overcoming prior refusals.

Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. In addition, since this rulemaking relates to rules of Department organization, procedure, or practice, it is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Finally, since this rulemaking is exempt from section 553, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) do not apply, and this rulemaking is effective immediately.

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business

Because this final rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. The Department is aware of no monetary effect on the economy that will result from this rulemaking.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, and has determined that the benefits of this regulation outweigh any cost. The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein. The Department does not consider this rule to be a significant rulemaking action.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule will not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41

Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Documentation of nonimmigrants, Passports and visas.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR part 41 to read as follows:

PART 41—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 41 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

22 U.S.C. 2651a; 8 U.S.C. 1104; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (sec. 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by sec. 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).

2. Section 41.102 is revised to read as follows:
§ 41.102 Personal appearance of applicant.

(a) Except when the requirement of personal appearance has been waived pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section, each applicant for a nonimmigrant visa who is at least 14 years of age and not more than 79 years of age must personally appear before and be interviewed by a consular officer, who shall determine on the basis of the applicant's representations, the visa application and other relevant documentation:

(1) The proper nonimmigrant classification, if any, of the alien; and

(2) The alien's eligibility to receive a visa.

(b) Waivers of personal appearance by consular officers. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section or as otherwise instructed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services, a consular officer may waive the requirement of personal appearance if the consular officer concludes the alien presents no national security concerns requiring an interview and:

(1) Is within a class of nonimmigrants classifiable under the visa symbols A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (except attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, NATO-6, or is a Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) nonimmigrant classifiable under visa symbol E-1, and is seeking a visa in such classification; or

(2) Is an applicant for a diplomatic or official visa as described in § 41.26 or § 41.27 of this chapter; or

(3) Is an applicant who is within 12 months of the expiration of the applicant's previously issued visa and:

(i) Is seeking re-issuance of a nonimmigrant visa in the same classification;

(ii) Is applying at the consular post of the applicant's usual residence; and

(iii) Is an applicant for whom the consular officer has no indication of visa ineligibility or of noncompliance with U.S. immigration laws and regulations.

(c) Waivers of personal appearance in the national interest. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the Secretary may waive the requirement of personal appearance of an individual applicant or a class of applicants if the Secretary determines that such waiver is in the national interest of the United States.

(d) Waivers of personal appearance in unusual or emergent circumstances. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services may waive the requirement of personal appearance of an individual applicant or a class of applicants if the Deputy Assistant Secretary determines that such waiver is necessary as a result of unusual or emergent circumstances.

(e) Cases in which personal appearance may not be waived. Except for a nonimmigrant applicant whose personal appearance is waived under paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (c) of this section, the personal appearance requirement may not be waived for:

(1) Any nonimmigrant applicant who is not a national or resident of the country in which he or she is applying.

(2) Any nonimmigrant applicant who was previously refused a visa, is listed in CLASS, or otherwise requires a Security Advisory Opinion, unless:

(i) The visa was refused and the refusal was subsequently overcome; or

(ii) The alien was found inadmissible, but the inadmissibility was waived.

(3) Any nonimmigrant applicant who is from a country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism, regardless of age, or who is a member of a group or sector designated by the Secretary of State under section 222(h)(2)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Dated: August 17, 2015. Michele Thoren Bond, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-28578 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 256 [156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] RIN 1076-AF22 Housing Improvement Program ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is updating its regulations governing its Housing Improvement Program, which is a safety-net program that provides grants for repairing, renovating, or replacing existing housing and for providing new housing. This final rule is an important part of the Tiwahe initiative, which is designed to promote the stability and security of Indian families. This final rule aligns the program with other Federal requirements, allows leveraging of housing funds to increase the number of families served and projects funded, and promotes tribal sovereignty and self-determination by providing tribes with more flexibility in determining how to address waiting lists of tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

DATES:

This rule is effective December 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Les Jensen, Division of Housing Assistance, Bureau of Indian Affairs at (907) 586-7397. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1 (800) 877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background II. The Rule's Changes to the Current HIP III. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments A. General B. Definitions (256.2) C. Certificate of Title (256.3) D. Eligibility (256.6) 1. Income Limits 2. Previous Assistance 3. Participation in Government Program E. Category A—Repair of Existing Homes (256.7, 256.8) F. Category B—Renovation (256.7, 256.9) G. Category C—Replacement of New Housing, Square Footage (256.7, 256.10) H. Both Categories B and C I. Category D—Down Payment Assistance (256.7, 256.11) J. New Ranking Factors (256.14) K. Ranking Factor—Dependent Children L. Ranking Factor—Age M. Ranking Factor—Disability N. Active Period for Applications O. NEPA P. Funding Q. Other Comments IV. Procedural Requirements I. Background

The Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is a safety-net program that provides grants for the cost of services to repair, renovate, or replace existing housing and provide new housing for eligible members of federally recognized Indian tribes. The BIA administers the HIP under the regulations at 25 CFR part 256. The BIA distributes HIP funding based on a priority ranking derived from a point system to identify those individuals and families most in need of housing assistance. Funding is restricted to individuals and families that reside in the tribe's service area. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the HIP will serve approximately 140 recipients. These recipients are individuals and families with extremely low incomes.

II. The Rule's Changes to the Current HIP

This final rule updates various provisions to align the HIP with other Federal program requirements, allow leveraging of housing funds to increase the number of families served and projects funded, and provide tribes with flexibility to better address lengthy waiting lists of tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

Categories of Assistance and Funding Limits

Currently, the HIP provides funding for four categories of housing needs:

• Category A—for repair of existing homes;

• Category B—for renovation of existing homes to standard housing condition;

• Category C-1—for construction of replacement homes; and

• Category C-2—for new housing.

For each category, there is a limit on the amount of funding a recipient may receive. The final rule increases the limit for Category A funding from $2,500 to $7,500 and increases the limit for Category B funding from $35,000 to $60,000. The original limits are inadequate, given the average costs of repair and renovation to standard housing condition. These limit increases better reflect the actual costs of repair and renovation. Further, these limit increases will allow more households to repair and renovate existing homes, rather than spending more on each individual household to build a new home. This approach will improve housing conditions for more households.

The final rule adds a new Category D, to allow assistance toward the purchase of a modest house (e.g., financial assistance for a down payment) for families that can obtain a mortgage loan from other Federal programs. These rule changes allow for HIP assistance to families with very low income (rather than just families with extremely low income) and allow families to leverage the funding they receive, making each Federal dollar stretch farther.

Ranking Factors

Priority ranking for HIP assistance is based on total numeric value (points) received under the ranking factors. The current ranking factors are based on the applicant's annual household income, whether there is an aged person living in the house, whether there is a disabled person living in the house, and family size. There are a certain number of points available for each of the ranking factors. Each applicant receives a certain number of points under each of the ranking factors. The final rule updates the current ranking factors, as shown in the table below.

Ranking factor Final rule change from current rule Reason for change Annual household income Increase the income guidelines from 125 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines Those within 150 percent of the poverty level would be eligible, allowing the HIP to assist the very needy, in addition to the extremely needy. Age Award one point for every year above 54 years of age, up to 15 points. Currently there is no maximum number of points available Awarding a maximum of 15 points for this ranking factor ensures that it is appropriately weighted against other factors so that tribes have more flexibility to address their lengthy waiting lists in a manner they determine best serves tribal members awaiting housing assistance. Disability Award 10 points if one or more members of the applicant household is disabled and decrease the number of points available for this category to 10 points (currently 20 points is available) Awarding 10 points if one or more members of the applicant househhold is disabled ensures that this ranking factor is appropriately weighted against other factors so that tribes have more flexibility to address their lengthy waiting lists in a manner they determine best serves tribal members awaiting housing assistance. Dependent Children Award 3 points for one dependent and 3 points for each additional dependent, up to a maximum of 15 points for 5 or more dependents (currently, the maximum for 6 or more dependents is 5 points) These adjustments ensure that this ranking factor is appropriately weighted against other factors so that tribes have more flexibility to address their lengthy waiting lists in a manner they determine best serves tribal members awaiting housing assistance. Other conditions New category including ranking factors for veterans (5 points), homelessness or overcrowding (5 points), and dilapidated housing (5 points), with a maximum of 15 points These new ranking factors prioritize applicants who are veterans, homeless or in overcrowded or dilapidated housing conditions, by awarding points for these factors Approved Financing Package New category for applicants with an approved financing package for housing who still need HIP assistance This new ranking factor allows applicants to leverage funding to improve housing conditions.

Overall, the adjustments to the points are intended to create a level playing field among applicants and provide tribes with more flexibility to determine how best to serve applicants on their long waiting lists.

Payback Agreements

Under the HIP, the recipient may be required to enter into a “payback agreement” which provides that the recipient will have to pay back the entire amount of funding received or a portion thereof if the recipient sells the home within a certain period of time. If the payback period expires, no payback is required and the money is considered a grant. Currently, for Category B, the payback period is 5 years. So, for example, a family that receives HIP funding for a home must repay the funding if the family sells the home within 5 years of receiving the funding. The final rule does not establish a uniform payback period, but provides that the payback agreement will establish the payback period. The final rule does not affect the payback period for Category C.

Four-Year Application Period

The final rule also increases the time for consideration of an application to 4 years. Currently an application expires after one year, requiring an applicant who does not receive assistance under the HIP to reapply annually until assistance is received. The final rule places each application in the application pool for four years, so an applicant need only apply once every 4 years until assistance is received.

Land Ownership Requirements

HIP funding applicants must provide proof of land ownership before the grant award. The final rule allows the applicant to provide proof of a homesite lease or proof that the applicant can obtain the land, even by lease, rather than requiring ownership. A certificate of title is required if and when the applicant becomes the owner of the home.

Square-Footage Limits

The final rule also increases square-footage limits to allow Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to be met, when applicable, and clarify when ADA requirements apply. The following table shows the increases in square footage the final rule makes.

Number of bedrooms in house Current and new square footages
  • (sf)
  • Total increase
  • (sf)
  • 2 bedrooms 900 sf to 1,000 sf 100 3 bedrooms 1,050 sf to 1,200 sf 50 4 bedrooms 1,305 sf to 1,400 sf 95
    Standard Housing Definition

    The definition of “standard housing” reduces the number of persons appropriate for a three-bedroom dwelling from “up to seven persons” to “up to six persons” to reflect that, depending on the make-up of the family, three persons per bedroom may be considered crowded. Additionally, the final rule changes the bedroom sizes to require “up to 120 feet” of floor space for the first bedroom and “up to 100 feet” of floor space for each additional bedroom, to allow tribes the flexibility to provide for smaller square footage where appropriate. The current rule requires “at least 120 feet” and “at least 100 feet,” respectively.

    III. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments

    We received 20 written comment submissions on this rule and several oral comments at tribal consultations. The following summarizes the substantive comments received and our responses.

    A. General

    Every tribe that submitted comments on the rule supported the proposed rule changes in general, noting the importance of the HIP as a program, and further stating that the changes provide flexibility for tribes to better address long waiting lists in their service areas, foster relationships with other agencies to leverage Federal housing funds, and increase the number of families served and projects funded. Only one commenter opposed the rule for reasons summarized below (e.g., opposition to the funding limits for Categories A and B, adding a new category for down payment assistance, the increased application period).

    One tribe asked how the changes to factors will provide tribes with flexibility to better address lengthy waiting lists. Expanding the criteria and adjusting the points allows younger families more of a chance at assistance by awarding a similar number of points for different factors. This may result in more ties in points among applicants, which will allow the tribe flexibility to identify the priority among applicants with a similar number of points. By increasing the funding limits in Categories A and B, more households will be able to repair and renovate existing homes, reducing the need to build new homes. These changes, along with the new category for down-payment assistance to purchase a new home, allow Federal dollars to stretch farther and serve more households.

    A commenter stated that the tribe supports allowing applicants to provide proof of a lease rather than homeownership because some families cannot afford to purchase a home but still need to participate in the HIP to bring living conditions to an acceptable level. The final rule allows proof of a lease rather than homeownership.

    B. Definitions (256.2)

    One commenter suggested multiple changes to the definitions, as listed here.

    • The definition of “agency” should include a unit of BIA that enters into cooperative agreements and/or self-determination contracts with tribes. The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because the context in which “agency” is used in the rule does not require specifying that tribal organizations can enter into agreements to administer the HIP.

    • The citation in the definition of “overcrowding” is incorrect. The final rule includes the correct citation, to 256.10 instead of 256.11.

    • The definition of “permanent members of household” should be reworded to be “adults and any children living in the household who intend to live there continuously.” The final rule does not make this change because the suggested wording could be interpreted to increase eligibility requirements by requiring proof of the children's intention to live in the household continuously.

    • The definition of “standard housing condition” should include a four bedroom house as adequate for all but the largest families. The final rule inserts this provision and clarifies the number of occupants that each size house may not exceed.

    • The definition of “standard housing condition” should state that, in regions of severe climate, the size of the house may be changed to comply with the requirement that the heating system has the capacity to maintain a minimum temperature of 70 degrees in the house. The final rule does not incorporate this change because the size requirements and heating system requirements are compatible and both can be met even in areas of severe climate.

    Another commenter asked whether all agencies of the Federal government are using the same definition of homelessness. The definition of “homelessness” for the purposes of HIP is different from that of other Federal agencies, to ensure that our definition encompasses persons who may be without a home but staying with extended family or friends, while other agencies' definitions may focus more on chronic homelessness.

    A commenter asked for more information on what it means that the rule changes will “align” HIP requirements with other programs. The rule changes will allow eligible applicants for the HIP to participate in both the HIP and other government housing programs to leverage available funding and make down payments or receive repairs or renovations they may not otherwise have been able to afford.

    A few commenters recommended specifying in the definition of “standard housing condition” that, if no housing codes with building standards exist, construction must meet appropriate building standards for the region. The final rule does not incorporate this change because every housing office should have a standard housing code, which would apply.

    C. Policy (256.3)

    One commenter suggested adding to the policy statement that every American Indian and Alaska Native should have the opportunity for a “safe” home and suitable living “conditions” (rather than “environment”). The final rule incorporates these edits because the opportunity for “safe” homes, in addition to decent homes, is consistent with national housing policy.

    One commenter supported the provision at 256.3 requiring BIA to provide a certificate of title for the dwelling once the program participant owns the home. Another commenter suggested adding to the end of 256.25 that a certificate of title or ownership will be issued upon completion of the work. The tribe or lender may issue a certificate of title.

    D. Eligibility (256.6) 1. Income Limits

    Several commenters stated their support of the proposal to increase the income guidelines for eligibility from 125 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines because it will extend the reach of the program to more applicants who are in need of housing but not eligible for other housing assistance programs. The final rule includes this increase.

    One commenter requested more information about the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes the guidelines on an annual basis. They are available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.cfm.

    2. Previous HIP Assistance

    Some commenters stated that, while they recognize the need to serve clients who have not previously received assistance through the HIP, they recommend that this restriction on eligibility not apply to recipients of Category B rehabilitation funds if the funds were received prior to a certain time, such as more than 25 years ago. The final rule retains the restriction on eligibility in the interest of fairness, to ensure that those who have not yet received HIP assistance are given priority.

    3. Participation in Government Program

    A few commenters stated that the eligibility restriction against having acquired present housing through participation in a Federal government-sponsored housing program should be deleted. The commenters stated that the restriction could unnecessarily limit participation in the HIP and that participation in other programs, such as a Mutual Help, HUD Section 184, or Section 502 program should not prevent someone from participating in the HIP. The final rule clarifies that only past participation, over the previous 20-year period, in another Federal government-sponsored program to obtain your current home restricts your eligibility for the HIP. The final rule encourages contemporaneous participation in another Federal government-sponsored housing program to leverage available funding.

    E. Category A—Repair of Existing Homes (256.7, 256.8)

    Several commenters stated their support of the proposal to increase the limit for Category A (Repair) funding from $2,500 to $7,500 because it better reflects average costs of housing repairs and would allow tribes to address more housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of tribal members. A commenter stated that current funding limits allow only minimal repairs that do not make any lasting improvements, while the proposed limits would improve the health of impoverished families by better addressing basic housing needs. The final rule includes the proposed increase in Category A funding.

    One commenter stated that there should be higher limits on repair costs and lower limits on renovation costs because renovations may be strictly cosmetic. The final rule does not change the limits because renovations funded by the HIP are those necessary to bring the house to standard housing condition. See 256.7.

    One commenter stated that BIA should revisit the limits in two or three years, rather than the 13 years it took to update the current limits with this rule, to ensure that the amount continues to be sufficient. While revisiting the limits in two to three years may be unrealistic, BIA will endeavor to revisit the limits more frequently to account for inflation and other factors that may affect the effectiveness of the limits.

    One commenter stated that higher limits are necessary to address emergency repairs such as roofing, windows, doors, insulation, and old wiring and heating, and stated that such repairs may cost $15,000 and up. While Category A funding may be used to address safety concerns, the HIP generally is not intended for emergency repairs.

    F. Category B—Renovation (256.7, 256.9)

    Several commenters expressed their support for increasing the limit for Category B funding from $35,000 to $60,000 because the current renovation limits fail to provide adequate funding to improve housing conditions to a level that meets applicable building code standards. The final rule includes the increase in Category B funding.

    The proposed rule would have lengthened the Category B payback period to 10 years. So, for example, a family that receives HIP funding for a home would have had to repay the funding if the family sold the home within 10 years. Several commenters also expressed their support of increasing the payback agreement period from 5 years to 10 years for Category B, to better allow the tribe to recoup the costs before the recipient sells the home and allow those recouped costs to be used to address the housing needs of other program recipients on the waiting list. One commenter expressed opposition to increasing the payback period, stating that the increase would detrimentally affect grant recipients by requiring them to stay in their home for at least 10 years. Another commenter suggested a pro-rata formula for payback beyond 5 years, because wear and tear on a home over 5 years can be significant. The final rule provides that the payback agreement will establish the payback period in order to allow flexibility in determining the appropriate payback period under each set of circumstances.

    G. Category C—Replacement of New Housing, Square Footage (256.7, 256.10)

    One commenter stated support for the inclusion of freight costs in Category C funding for homes in Alaska. The final rule includes freight costs for Category C funding.

    One commenter stated that the table at 256.10(a)(1) should also require that the land has adequate ingress and egress rights and reasonable access to utilities. The final rule does not include this additional requirement because the cited provision addresses homes already owned, so it is presumed that there is already adequate ingress and egress and reasonable access to utilities.

    Several commenters supported the proposed increase in square footage limits. Some stated that that it will allow tribes to better serve families with disabilities and meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. One commenter, while conceptually in favor of the square footage limits, stated concern that, without additional appropriations, the increases may prevent the HIP from reaching a greater number of people in need or reduce the number served. Another commenter stated that the proposed increases to bedroom sizes do not go far enough. The final rule incorporates the proposed increases in square footage limits to better serve families with disabilities.

    H. Both Categories B and C

    A few commenters recommended clarifying that recipients of Category B and Category C who sell the house must repay the tribe directly operating the HIP (or BIA), to ensure that funding stays in the community where it was originally invested, consistent with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and self-governance. The final rule incorporates this change; however, any funding returned to the tribe or tribal organization may be used only for the HIP.

    One commenter suggested providing a $60,000 funding limit for Alaska and a lower funding limit for the lower 48 States because renovations are generally more costly in Alaska. The final rule imposes a funding limit of $60,000 on renovations, regardless of what State the home is located in; however, it allows for additional funding for homes in Alaska to cover freight costs.

    I. Category D—Assistance (256.7, 256.11)

    Several commenters stated their support of the proposed new Category D, allowing for down payment assistance. The commenters pointed out that assistance with down payments will help tribes promote homeownership to families of all ages and will allow tribes to serve working class families that would not otherwise qualify for housing because they do not have the financial resources to come up with a down payment. One noted that the down payment assistance dollars could be used to buy down the interest rate and principal loan so that monthly mortgage payments are more affordable for working families.

    One commenter stated a concern that Category D does not include spending caps or payback agreements that the current HIP program categories possess and that, without a cap, the limited HIP funds may serve fewer recipients. BIA agrees that a cap may be appropriate at some point but requires several years to collect data on what an appropriate cap would be. For this reason, BIA will revisit this comment at some point in the next decade or two.

    A few commenters specifically supported the proposed language at 256.11(b) saying that Category D funds may be used for down payment assistance, closing costs, and pre-homeownership counseling.

    A few commenters suggested defining the income eligibility for Category D using the definition provided in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) regulations at 12 CFR 1000.10, which would allow those with an annual income that is 80 percent of the area median income or United States median income, whichever is higher, to be eligible. The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because defining income eligibility for one category in a manner different from the other categories would be administratively burdensome.

    A few commenters suggested that, to promote use of Category D, BIA set aside 10 percent of each region's HIP allocation for Category D. They also suggested that BIA document the need for Category D funding so future appropriation requests can be increased to meet down payment assistance needs. There is no change to the final rule to address this comment because BIA addresses allocations in its annual funding letter to tribes. BIA believes it will take several funding cycles to fully implement the Category D program and identify the appropriate level of funding based on participation.

    One commenter stated that down payment assistance should be offered as part of Category C-2, because creating a new Category D will demand more time, resources, and procedures. BIA has determined that the more cost effective solution is to create a new Category D for down payment assistance because it can be separately tracked and administered.

    A commenter stated that the 30-point ranking value for factor 6, applicants with an approved financing package, may lead to an approval bias toward Category D applications, while needs related to the other three categories go unmet. The final rule lowers the point value from 30 to 25 in response to these comments. BIA believes the 25-point value will allow tribes the flexibility to put an applicant for Category D assistance on an equal footing with applicants for other categories. HIP funds will still be made available for the other categories.

    One commenter stated that, with the addition of Category D, the intent of the program is changed from a safety-net program because the program would no longer be providing assistance to the neediest of the needy with no other resources, since Category D applicants do have other resources for assistance. The final rule does not make any changes in response to the comment because Category D applicants still must meet the extremely low and very low income and other eligibility requirements for HIP participation. While Category D helps those who need HIP assistance in order to avail themselves of otherwise unavailable resources. This commenter also suggested changing the down payment assistance program to one in which a participant could provide in-kind services for down payment (e.g., labor equity toward construction of the house). The final rule does not allow for in-kind services or labor equity because doing so would pose safety and liability issues that BIA is not prepared to undertake at this point.

    One commenter asked whether a person approved for participation in the HIP can get a loan “on top of” the HIP assistance. The final rule does not allow loans in addition to HIP assistance, but does encourage coordination of HIP assistance with other Federal resources to leverage those resources.

    J. New Ranking Factors (256.14)

    Several commenters stated their support of the new ranking factors for homelessness, overcrowding, and dilapidated housing, as helping to identify and prioritize tribal communities' housing needs.

    A few commenters suggested adding a new factor for veterans; one suggested the new factor for veterans should be for 20 points. The final rule adds veteran as an “other condition” in recognition of both the important contribution to society that veterans have made and the disadvantage many veterans are under economically. The final rule provides the veteran ranking factor with a point value of 5 to balance this factor with other factors.

    K. Ranking Factor—Dependent Children

    A few commenters stated their support for increasing the maximum number of points for dependent children. One noted that single-parent families are growing and in need of housing but have difficulty in gaining approval under the HIP, and that elders often live with these families and, as such, the proposed increase in points serves two constituencies. One commenter stated that there should be a ranking factor or priority points for families with young children, and that these families should be prioritized above all because it is our duty as society to allocate sufficient resources for habitable homes to these children. The proposed and final rule increase the maximum number of points awarded for dependent children from 5 to 15 points.

    L. Ranking Factor—Age

    The final rule retains the threshold for being considered “aged”at 55 years old. The proposed rule proposed to increase the threshold from 55 years old to 62 years old to align the age with the Social Security age for retirement. Several commenters opposed increasing the threshold for being considered “aged” from 55 years of age to 62 years of age. These commenters recommended that the threshold stay at 55 with a maximum of 20, rather than 15 points, allowing anyone over 75 to obtain 20 points. One commenter noted that the basis for the proposed increase to 62, aligning the HIP age requirement with the Social Security age of retirement, does not reflect the realities Indian Country faces, in which the average American Indian or Alaska Native has a shorter lifespan and more medical issues. Another commenter stated that the program should target the elderly and disabled by giving them higher priority. The final rule retains the current threshold for “aged” at 55 in response to these comments. The final rule retains the proposed maximum of 15 points for this factor to ensure that it is appropriately weighted against other factors so that tribes have more flexibility to address their lengthy waiting lists in a manner they determine best serves tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

    M. Ranking Factor—Disability

    One commenter supported the proposal to provide a set number of points if at least one disabled person is in the household, regardless of how many disabled persons are in the household. Another commenter opposed the proposal to provide a set number of points, stating that it does not account for the fact that households with two disabled members often experience high mortality rates and may put at a disadvantage those households where one disabled member dies before the household is served. The final rule provides for 10 points for any household in which there is at least one disabled member.

    A few commenters stated that the proposed 10 points is not enough to account for disabled persons; one suggested 20 points should be provided for a disabled person. BIA ran several scenarios using different point values and determined that 10 points is appropriate to put this factor on equal footing with the other factors. As a whole, the rule attempts to balance the number of points available in each category to allow for households with different needs to remain competitive with each other in scoring, thereby allowing the tribe to prioritize among households with tied or close scores.

    One commenter asked whether someone with fetal alcohol effects would be considered disabled under the rule. The rule defines “disabled” broadly to encompass a physical or intellectual impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

    N. Active Period for Applications

    Several commenters supported the proposal of allowing applications to remain active for four years, rather than the current one year, because this change removes unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens, removes a deterrent to reapplying, benefits applicants, and provides greater flexibility to tribes in providing housing services. One commenter stated that the change is not advantageous to the applicant or the HIP because the applicant's circumstances may change over the course of four years. The final rule incorporates the four-year period because applicants may annually update their applications to address any updated circumstances.

    O. NEPA

    A few commenters noted the typographical error in the title of the “National Environmental Policy Act.” The proposed rule identified the Act as the “National Environmental Protection Act.” The final rule corrects this error.

    A few commenters also noted their view that all of the specific actions authorized by the HIP would be covered by a NEPA categorical exclusion and suggested adding language to 256.19 to clarify this. The final rule incorporates this change.

    P. Funding

    Nearly every commenter stated support of continued funding for the HIP and asserted that more funding is needed for the HIP. One commenter stated that the HIP targets a population in dire need of support and has had a significant impact on the lives of Indian people, but over the years, the funding in real dollars has dropped substantially. Another commenter stated that the households the tribe is serving through the HIP truly have no other options to improve living conditions. These commenters stated that there is a need for Congress and the Administration to work together to fund the HIP at a meaningful level; otherwise, the increases in funding limits, while appropriate and needed, may result in fewer families being served.

    One commenter stated that funding for Category C, in particular, is needed. BIA recommends that tribes ask their regional HIP officers if additional funding for Category C is needed.

    Another commenter stated that the HIP's funding formula methodology does not currently function well for tribes in its area because the income limits are too low. The final rule increases the current income limits but BIA has determined that increasing the limits further may duplicate other programs, rather than meeting the HIP's goal to meet the housing needs of the neediest.

    A commenter stated that HIP funds should be leveraged with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding for energy efficiency. BIA encourages tribes to work with BIA, DOE, and other agencies to leverage funding.

    A commenter expressed concern that the higher funding limits will mean fewer applications will be accepted and fewer households will receive benefits. BIA does not expect the rule's changes to the HIP to decrease the number of participants because the rule changes allow for better leveraging of federal funding, allowing each dollar to go farther.

    Q. Other Comments

    A few commenters addressed issues with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. BIA suggests that tribes may want to consider contacting FEMA regarding mapping.

    One commenter stated that households should be eligible for HIP assistance, even if prior assistance was received, if the useful life expectancy of the house has been exceeded and it otherwise qualifies as dilapidated. The final rule retains the restriction on previous assistance to be eligible for the HIP in order to prioritize getting HIP assistance to those who have not received assistance before, in the interest of fairness.

    A commenter suggested adding more items to the list of other income for which applicants must provide proof in applying for the HIP. The final rule does not incorporate this change because the income items listed are examples and are not an exhaustive list.

    A commenter suggested that “your position on the priority list” should be the first item listed in 256.17, listing factors that affect the length of time it takes to do work on your house. The final rule accepts this edit because the position on the priority list is an important factor that participants often overlook. This commenter also suggested that “infrastructure availability” should be added to the list. The final rule adds this to the list as an example of “other unforeseen factors.”

    Commenters provided suggestions for additional non-substantive edits that the final rule does not incorporate. A few commenters suggested the Bureau create an advisory committee for updates to the HIP handbook. BIA plans to update the handbook and suggests that tribes and other interested parties work through their housing officers to provide comments.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

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

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department 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.). It does not have any effect on small entities because only individuals and families are recipients of funding under the program governed by this rule. The Department provides funding through tribes to eligible individuals within service areas based on a priority ranking derived from a point system to identify those individuals and families most in need of housing assistance. While it is possible that small entities may be among the service providers performing renovations, repairs, and construction funded under this program, this rule will not foreseeably affect the demand for such services. Renovations, repairs, and construction performed using funding provided in this program must comply with applicable ordinances, including any permitting requirements.

    C. 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. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Funding for the HIP comes from the Federal Government budget.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involves a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no 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. This rule updates the implementation requirements for the HIP, which is a Federal program.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), 512 DM 4 and 5, and the BIA Government-to-Government Consultation Policy, we have held several listening sessions and consultation sessions with representatives of federally recognized tribes throughout the development of this rule. In 2010, BIA staff implementing the HIP opened a dialogue with Indian tribes because tribes indicated that the program as structured was not allowing them to make progress on their waiting lists of members with housing needs. BIA then held several listening sessions and incorporated comments received during those listening sessions into the rule. Following publication of the proposed rule, BIA hosted consultation sessions with Indian tribes throughout February 2015, including two sessions in Washington, DC to accommodate those attending the National American Indian Housing Council legislative conference and the National Congress of American Indian Executive Council Winter Session, one in Anchorage, Alaska, and one by teleconference. BIA has addressed the input received during those sessions in this final rule.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., prohibits a Federal agency from conducting or sponsoring a collection of information that requires OMB approval, unless such approval has been obtained and the collection request displays a currently valid OMB control number. Nor is any person required to respond to an information collection request that has not complied with the PRA. In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), BIA submitted the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this rule to OMB for review and approval. BIA received no comments addressing the information collection requirements and made no revisions to its request. OMB has reviewed the request and approved the information collection.

    The following describes the information collection requirements in the rule. The information collection requirements differ from those in the current rule in that applicants need only submit a full application form every four years, but applicants must provide an update (in any format) annually if any information on the application changes. The application form associated with this information collection is also being updated. The revisions result in a net decrease of 4,000 hours because a full application is now required only once every four years, and applicants must only provide annual updates.

    Title: Housing Improvement Program, 25 CFR part 256.

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0184.

    Expiration Date: 10/31/2018.

    Summary: This information collection requires individuals and families that are seeking funding assistance for repair, renovation, or replacement of existing homes or new housing, to provide certain information to establish their eligibility for the HIP administered by BIA. This new information collection approval will replace existing OMB Control Number 1076-0084 to accommodate revisions to the application form.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Description of Respondents: Indian tribal members.

    Total Annual Responses: 10,000.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,000.

    Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden: $ 20,000.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

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

    L. Drafting Information

    The primary authors of this document are Les Jensen, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, and Sabrina McCarthy, Office of the Solicitor—Division of Indian Affairs.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 256

    Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Housing, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 25 CFR chapter I, subchapter K, by revising part 256 to read as follows:

    PART 256—HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HIP) Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 256.1 Purpose. 256.2 Definitions. 256.3 Policy. 256.4 Information collection. 256.5 What is the Housing Improvement Program? Subpart B—Determining Eligibility 256.6 Am I eligible for the Housing Improvement Program? 256.7 What housing services are available? 256.8 When do I qualify for Category A assistance? 256.9 When do I qualify for Category B assistance? 256.10 When do I qualify for Category C assistance? 256.11 When do I qualify for Category D assistance? 256.12 Who administers the program? Subpart C—Applying for Assistance 256.13 How do I apply for the Housing Improvement Program? 256.14 How is my application processed? Subpart D—Receiving Assistance 256.15 When will I hear if I have received funding? 256.16 What if I don't receive funding? 256.17 How long will I have to wait for work on my house? 256.18 Who decides what work will be done? 256.19 How are work plans prepared? 256.20 How will I find out what work is to be done? 256.21 Who does the work? 256.22 How are construction contractors or companies selected and paid? 256.23 Do I have to move out while work is done? 256.24 How can I be sure that construction work meets minimum standards? 256.25 How will I find out that the work is done? 256.26 Will I need flood insurance? 256.27 Is my Federal government-assisted house eligible for services? 256.28 I have a mobile home; am I eligible for help? 256.29 Can HIP resources be combined with other available resources? 256.30 Can I appeal actions taken under this part? Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 13, 5 U.S.C. 301, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9, and 43 U.S.C. 1457.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 256.1 Purpose.

    The purpose of the part is to define the terms and conditions under which assistance is given to Indians under the Housing Improvement Program (HIP).

    § 256.2 Definitions.

    As used in this part:

    Agency means the organizational unit of BIA that provides services to or with the governing body or bodies and members of one or more specified Indian tribes.

    Appeal means a written request for review of an action or inaction of an official of BIA that is claimed to adversely affect the interested party making the request, as provided in part 2 of this chapter.

    Applicant means an individual(s) filing an application for services under the HIP.

    BIA means the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior.

    Category A means the HIP funding category for minor repair not to exceed limits in § 256.7 of this part.

    Category B means the HIP funding category for renovation not to exceed limits in § 256.7 of this part.

    Category C-1 means the HIP funding category to replace a house that cannot be brought up to standard housing condition for $60,000 or less.

    Category C-2 means the HIP funding category for building new housing as defined in § 256.13(g)(1)-(5).

    Category D means the HIP funding category for assistance as defined in § 256.11(a)-(c).

    Certificate of Title or Ownership means a document giving legal right to a house constructed with HIP funds.

    Child means a person under the age of 18 or such other age of majority as is established for purposes of parental support by tribal or state law (if any) applicable to the person at his or her residence, except that no person who has been emancipated by marriage can be deemed a child.

    Cost effective means the cost of the project is within the cost limits for the category of assistance and adds sufficient years of service to the house to satisfy the recipient's housing needs.

    Dilapidated housing means a house which in its present condition endangers the life, health, or safety of the residents.

    Disabled means having a physical or intellectual impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

    Family means one or more persons living within a household.

    Homeless means being without a home.

    House means a building for human habitation that serves as living quarters for one or more families.

    Household means persons living with the head of household who may be related or unrelated to the head of household and who function as members of a family.

    Independent trades person means any person licensed to perform work in a particular vocation pertaining to building construction.

    Indian means any person who is a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe.

    Indian tribe means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to Public Law 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791.

    Overcrowding means a number of occupants per house that exceeds limits identified in § 256.10(d).

    Permanent members of household means adults living in the household who intend to live there continuously and any children who meet the definition of child in this part.

    Regional Director means the officer in charge of a BIA regional office or his/her authorized delegate.

    Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.

    Service area means any of the following within a geographical area designated by the tribe and approved by the Regional Director to which services can be delivered:

    (1) Reservations (former reservations in Oklahoma);

    (2) Allotments;

    (3) Restricted lands; and

    (4) Indian-owned lands (including lands owned by corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act).

    Servicing housing office means the tribal housing office or bureau housing office administering the HIP.

    Standard housing means a house that meets the definition of standard housing condition in this part.

    Standard housing condition means meets applicable building codes within that region and meets each of the following conditions:

    (1) General construction conforms to applicable tribal, county, State, or national codes and to appropriate building standards for the region.

    (2) The heating system has the capacity to maintain a minimum temperature of 70 degrees in the house during the coldest weather in the area and be safe to operate and maintain and deliver a uniform heat distribution.

    (3) The plumbing system includes a properly installed system of piping and fixtures certified by a licensed plumbing contractor.

    (4) The electrical system includes wiring and equipment properly installed to safely supply electrical energy for lighting and appliance operation certified by a licensed electrician according to the applicable electrical code.

    (5) The number of occupants per house does not exceed these limits:

    (i) Two-bedroom house: Up to four persons;

    (ii) Three-bedroom house: Up to six persons;

    (iii) Four-bedroom house: Adequate for all but the largest families.

    (6) The first bedroom has up to 120 sq. ft. of floor space and additional bedrooms have up to100 sq. ft. of floor space each.

    (7) The house site provides economical access to utilities and is easy to enter and leave.

    (8) The house has access to school bus routes, if the household includes children who rely on school buses.

    Substandard housing means any house that does not meet the definition of standard housing condition in this part.

    Superintendent means the BIA official in charge of an agency office.

    § 256.3 Policy.

    (a) The BIA housing policy is that every American Indian and Alaska Native should have the opportunity for a safe and decent home and suitable living conditions, which is consistent with the national housing policy. The HIP will serve the neediest of the needy Indian families who have no other resource for standard housing.

    (b) Every American Indian or Alaska Native who meets the basic eligibility criteria defined in § 256.6 may participate in the HIP.

    (c) The BIA encourages tribal participation in administering the HIP. Tribal involvement is necessary to ensure that the services provided under the program respond to the needs of tribes and program participants.

    (d) The BIA encourages partnerships and leveraging with other complementary programs to increase basic benefits derived from the HIP, such as an agreement with:

    (1) The Indian Health Service to provide water and sanitation facilities;

    (2) The United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development to leverage down payment assistance for a new unit; or

    (3) Any other program and resource.

    (e) The servicing housing office will issue a Certificate of Title or Ownership.

    § 256.4 Information collection.

    The information collection requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. and assigned control number 1076-0184. The information is collected to determine applicant eligibility for services and eligibility to participate in the program. Response is required to obtain a benefit. You may comment to the Bureau at any time with regard to this information collection.

    § 256.5 What is the Housing Improvement Program?

    The HIP is a safety-net program that provides grants for the cost of services to repair, renovate, or replace existing housing and/or provide housing. The program provides grants to the neediest of the needy Indian families who:

    (a) Live in substandard housing or are homeless; and

    (b) Have no other resource for assistance.

    Subpart B—Determining Eligibility
    § 256.6 Am I eligible for the Housing Improvement Program?

    You are eligible for the HIP if you meet all of the following criteria:

    (a) You are a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe;

    (b) You live in an approved tribal service area;

    (c) Your annual income is 150 percent or less of the Department of Health and Human Services poverty income guidelines, which are available from your servicing housing office or the Department of the Interior Web site at www.bia.gov;

    (d) Your present housing is substandard as defined in § 256.2;

    (e) You meet the ownership requirements for the assistance needed, as defined in § 256.8, § 256.9, or § 256.10;

    (f) You have no other resource for housing assistance;

    (g) You have not previously received assistance relating to categories as defined in §§ 256.9, 256.10, and 256.11; and

    (h) You did not acquire your present housing through past participation in a Federal government-sponsored housing program over the previous 20 year period.

    § 256.7 What housing services are available?

    Four categories of assistance are available under the HIP, as outlined in the following table.

    Type of assistance What it provides Where to find information Category A Up to $7,500 in safety or sanitation repairs to the house in which you live, which will remain substandard. Can be provided more than once, but not for more than one house and the total assistance cannot exceed $7,500. (For Alaska, freight cost not to exceed 100 percent of the cost of materials can be added to the cost of the project.) § 256.8. Category B Up to $60,000 in renovation, which will bring your house to standard housing condition, as defined in § 256.2 of this part. Can only be provided once. (For Alaska, freight cost not to exceed 100 percent of the cost of materials can be added to the cost of the project.) § 256.9. Category C A modest house that meets the criteria in § 256.10 of this part and the definition of standard housing in § 256.2 of this part and whose costs are determined by and limited to the criteria in § 256.19(b) and (c) of this part. Can only be provided once. (For Alaska, freight cost not to exceed 100 percent of the cost of materials can be added to the cost of the project.) § 256.10. Category D Assistance towards the purchase of a modest house that meets the definition of standard housing in § 256.2 § 256.11.
    § 256.8 When do I qualify for Category A assistance?

    You qualify for interim improvement assistance under Category A if it is not cost effective to repair the house in which you live and if either of the following is true:

    (a) Other resources to meet your housing needs exist but are not immediately available; or

    (b) You qualify for replacement housing under Category C, but there are no HIP funds available to replace your house.

    § 256.9 When do I qualify for Category B assistance?

    You qualify for renovation assistance under Category B if you meet all of the following criteria:

    (a) Your servicing housing office determines that it is cost effective to renovate the house.

    (b) You occupy and own the house.

    (c) Your servicing housing office determines that the renovation will bring the house to standard housing condition according to all applicable building codes.

    (d) You sign a written agreement stating that, if you sell the house before satisfaction of the Payback Agreement you will be required to repay the tribe, tribal organization that administers the HIP, or BIA the remaining balance according to the terms of the Payback Agreement:

    (1) The grant under this part will be voided; and

    (2) At the time of settlement of the sale of the house, you will repay the tribe or tribal organization that operates the HIP or BIA the full cost of all renovations made under this part.

    § 256.10 When do I qualify for Category C assistance?

    (a) You qualify for replacement housing assistance under Category C if you meet one of the three sets of requirements in the following table.

    You qualify for Category C assistance if . . . And . . . And . . . (1) You own the house in which you are living as defined in § 256.13(g)(1)-(5) The house cannot be brought up to applicable building code standards and to standard housing condition for $60,000 or less. (For Alaska, freight cost not to exceed 100 percent of the cost of materials can be added to the cost of the project) [No additional requirement]. (2) You do not own a house You own land that is suitable for housing The land has adequate ingress and egress rights and reasonable access to utilities. (3) You do not own a house You have a leasehold or the ability to acquire a leasehold on land that is suitable for housing and the leasehold is undivided and for not less than 25 years at the time you receive assistance The land has adequate ingress and egress rights and reasonable access to utilities.

    (b) If you qualify for assistance under paragraph (a) of this section, you must sign a written grant agreement stating that, if you sell the house within 10 years of assuming ownership:

    (1) The grant under this part will be voided; and

    (2) At the time of settlement of the sale of the house, you will repay the tribe or tribal organization that operates the HIP or BIA the full cost of the house.

    (c) If you sell the house more than 10 years after you assume ownership, the following conditions apply:

    (1) You may retain 10 percent of the original cost of the house per year, beginning with the eleventh year.

    (2) If you sell the house after 20 years, you will not have to repay the tribe, tribal organization, or BIA.

    (d) A modest house provided with Category C assistance must meet the standards in the following table.

    Number of occupants Number of bedrooms 1 Total square footage 1
  • (maximum)
  • Up to 4 persons 2 1000 Up to six persons 3 1200 7 or more persons 4 1400 1 Determined by the servicing housing office, based on composition of family. Total living space must comply with applicable American Disabilities Act requirements.
    § 256.11 When do I qualify for Category D assistance?

    (a) You qualify for grant assistance under Category D if you apply for financing from tribal, Federal, or other sources of credit and have inadequate income or limited financial resources to meet the lender requirements for home ownership.

    (b) The grant must not exceed the amount necessary to secure the loan and may be used for down-payment assistance, closing costs, and pre-home ownership counseling. Participation with other complementary housing programs is encouraged.

    (c) The method of awarding the grant must ensure that the funds are used for the purpose intended.

    § 256.12 Who administers the program?

    The HIP is administered by a servicing housing office operated by either a tribe (under a Pub. L. 93-638 contract or a self-governance annual funding agreement) or BIA.

    Subpart C—Applying for Assistance
    § 256.13 How do I apply for the Housing Improvement Program?

    (a) First, obtain an application, BIA Form 6407, from your servicing housing office or the BIA Web site.

    (b) Second, complete and sign BIA Form 6407.

    (c) Third, submit your completed and signed application to your servicing housing office.

    (d) Fourth, furnish to the servicing housing office documentation proving your tribal membership. Examples of acceptable documentation include a copy of your Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) or a copy of your tribal membership card.

    (e) Fifth, provide proof of income from all permanent members of your household.

    (1) Submit signed copies of current 1040 tax returns from all permanent members of the household, including W-2s and all other attachments. Submit the Social Security number of the applicant only.

    (2) Provide proof of all other income from all permanent members of the household. This includes unearned income such as Social Security, general assistance, retirement, and unemployment benefits.

    (3) If you or other household members did not file a tax return, submit a signed notarized statement explaining why you did not.

    (f) Sixth, furnish a copy of your annual trust income statement for your Individual Indian Money (IIM) account from your home agency. If you do not have an IIM account, furnish a statement from your home agency to that effect.

    (g) Seventh, provide proof of ownership of the residence and land or potential leasehold interest:

    (1) For fee property, provide a copy of a fully executed deed, which is available at your local county or parish court house;

    (2) For trust property, provide certification of ownership from your home agency;

    (3) For tribally owned land, provide a copy of a properly executed tribal assignment, certified by the tribe;

    (4) For multi-owner property, provide a copy of a properly executed lease;

    (5) For a potential lease, provide proof of ability to acquire an undivided leasehold (that is, you will be the only lessee) for a minimum of 25 years from the date of service; or

    (6) For down-payment assistance, provide a description and the location of the house to be purchased, verification of your intent to purchase, and the sale price of the house.

    (h) Eighth, if you seek down payment assistance, provide a letter from the institution where you have applied for mortgage financing that specifies:

    (1) The down payment amount; and

    (2) The closing costs required for you to qualify for the loan.

    § 256.14 How is my application processed?

    (a) The servicing housing office will review your application. If your application is incomplete, the office will notify you, in writing, of what is needed to complete your application and of the date by which it must be submitted. If you do not return your application by the deadline date, you will not be considered for assistance in that program year.

    (b) The servicing housing office will use your completed application to determine if you are eligible for the HIP.

    (1) If you are found ineligible for the program, the servicing housing office will advise you in writing within 45 days of receipt of your completed application.

    (2) If you are found eligible for the program, the servicing housing office will assess your application for need, according to the factors and numeric values shown in the following table.

    Factor Ranking factor and definition Ranking description Point value 1 Annual household income: Must include income of all persons counted in Factors 2, 3, 4. Income includes earned income, royalties, and one-time income. A household with an income 151 percent of more of the Federal poverty guidelines is ineligible for the HIP Income as a percentage of the Federal poverty guidelines: Points: 0-25 25. 26-50 20. 51-75 15. 76-100 10 101-125 5. 126-150 0. 2 Aged person: person age 55 or older and must be living in the house.
  • Maximum points awarded under this factor is 15, regardless of the number of years over age 55. Thus, 15 points will be added to the score for a resident who is 70 years old or older.
  • Years of age:
  • Less than 55
  • 55 and older
  • Points:
  • 1 point per year over age 54, up to maximum of 15 points.
  • 3 Disabled individual: One or more disabled persons living in the house. Must fit under established definition of “disabled as in § 256.2.” Maximum points awarded under this factor is 10, regardless of the number of disabled residents. If a there is a disabled resident 10. 4 Dependent Children: Must be under the age of 18 or such other age established for purposes of parental support by tribal or state law (if any). Must live in the house and not be married. Maximum points awarded under this factor is 15. Number of dependent children: Points: 1 3. 2 6. 3 9. 4 12. 5 or more 15. 5 Other conditions:
  • • Veteran.
  • • Homeless or Dilapidated house.
  • • Overcrowded conditions.
  • Maximum points awarded under this factor is 15
  • If any of the conditions are present 5 for each condition that applies.
    6 Applicants with an approved financing package If applicant has approved financing 25.

    (c) The servicing housing office will develop a list of the applications received and considered for the HIP for the current program year. The list will include, at a minimum, all of the following:

    (1) The number of applications received and, of those, the number considered.

    (2) The rank assigned to applicants in order of need, from highest to lowest, in accordance with tribal approval and knowledge of need, based on the total numeric value assigned using the factors in paragraph (b) of this section. (In case of a tie, the family with the lower income per household member will be listed first.)

    (3) The estimated allowable costs of the improvements, renovations, and replacement projects for each applicant and for the entire priority list. This data must identify which applicants will be served based on the amount of available funding, starting with the neediest applicant and continuing until the available funding is depleted.

    (4) A list of the applicants not ranked, with an explanation of why they weren't ranked (such as the reason for ineligibility or the reason for incomplete application).

    (d) The servicing housing office submits to the regional office an annual fiscal year report that includes all of the following:

    (1) Number of eligible applicants;

    (2) Number of applicants who received service;

    (3) Names of applicants who received service; and

    (4) All of the following for each applicant that received service:

    (i) Date of construction start;

    (ii) Date of construction completion;

    (iii) Cost; and

    (iv) HIP category.

    Subpart D—Receiving Assistance
    § 256.15 When will I hear if I have received funding?

    Your servicing housing office will inform you whether you will receive funds in writing within 45 days after it completes the list required by § 256.14(c).

    (a) If funding is available, the office will send you complete information on how to obtain HIP services.

    (b) If funding is not available, the office will send you instructions on how to update your application for funding for the next available program year.

    § 256.16 What if I don't receive funding?

    If you don't receive funding, your servicing housing office will retain and consider your application for 3 more years. During this 4-year period, you must ensure that the information on your application is still accurate and provide an annual written update if any information has changed.

    § 256.17 How long will I have to wait for work on my house?

    How long it takes to do work on your house depends on:

    (a) Your position on the priority list;

    (b) Whether funds are available;

    (c) The type of work to be done;

    (d) The climate and seasonal conditions where your house is located;

    (e) The availability of a contractor; and

    (f) Other unforeseen factors, such as infrastructure availability.

    § 256.18 Who decides what work will be done?

    The servicing housing office will determine what work is to be done on your house or whether your house will be replaced. The servicing housing office also provides the priority list annually to the Indian Health Service if the Indian Health Service is responsible for verifying availability or feasibility of water and wastewater facilities.

    § 256.19 How are work plans prepared?

    (a) First, a trained and qualified representative of your servicing housing office will visit your house to identify what renovation and or replacement will be done under the HIP. The representative will ensure that flood, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and earthquake requirements are met, including the determination that the renovation or replacement is appropriately treated as a categorical exclusion.

    (b) Second, based on the list of renovations or replacement to be done, your servicing housing office will estimate the total cost of renovation to your house. Cost estimates will be based on locally available services and product costs, or other regional-based, industry-recognized cost data, such as that provided by the MEANs or Marshall Swift. If the house is located in Alaska, documented, reasonable, substantiated freight costs, in accordance with Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR 101-40), not to exceed 100 percent of the cost of materials, can be added to the cost of the project.

    (c) Third, your servicing housing office will determine which HIP category the improvements to your house meet, based on the estimated cost of renovation or replacement. If the estimated cost to renovate your house is more than $60,000, your servicing housing office will recommend your house for replacement or refer you to another source for housing. The other source does not have to be for a replacement house; it may be for government-subsidized rental units or other sources for standard housing.

    (d) Fourth, your servicing housing office will develop a detailed, written report, called a scope of work, that identifies what renovation or construction work on your house will be accomplished and how. The scope of work is used to inform potential bidders of what work is to be done. When the work includes new construction, the scope of work will be supplemented with a set of construction plans and specifications. The construction plans must:

    (1) Meet the occupancy and square footage criteria in § 256.10 (d); and

    (2) Provide complete and detailed instructions to the builder.

    § 256.20 How will I find out what work is to be done?

    The servicing housing office will notify you in writing what work is being scheduled under the HIP. You will be requested to approve the scheduled work by signing a copy of the notice and returning it to the servicing housing office. Work will start after you return the signed copy to the servicing housing office.

    § 256.21 Who does the work?

    Your house will be renovated or replaced by either:

    (a) A licensed and bonded independent contractor or construction company; or

    (b) A tribe that operates the HIP under an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act agreement.

    § 256.22 How are construction contractors or companies selected and paid?

    The servicing housing office must follow Federal procurement or other Bureau-approved tribal procurement policy. Generally, your servicing housing office develops a “bid specification” or statement of work, which identifies the work to be performed. The appropriate contracting office uses the “bid specification” to provide information and invite bids on the project to interested parties. The contracting office selects the winning bidder after technical review of the bids by and written recommendation from the servicing housing office, and after determination that the bidder is qualified and capable of completing the project as advertised.

    (a) Partial payments to independent contractors will not exceed 80 percent of the value of the completed and acceptable work.

    (b) Recommendation for final payment will be made after final inspection and after all provisions of the contract have been met and all work has been completed.

    § 256.23 Do I have to move out while work is done?

    (a) You will be notified by your servicing housing office that you must vacate your house only if:

    (1) It is scheduled for major renovations requiring that all occupants vacate the house for safety reasons; or

    (2) It is scheduled for replacement, which requires demolition of your current house.

    (b) If you are required to vacate the premises during construction, you are responsible for:

    (1) Locating other lodging;

    (2) Paying all costs associated with vacating and living away from the house; and

    (3) Removing all your belongings and furnishings before the scheduled beginning work date.

    § 256.24 How can I be sure that construction work meets minimum standards?

    (a) At various stages of construction, a trained and qualified representative of your servicing housing office or a building inspector will review the work to ensure that it meets construction standards and building codes. Upon completion of each stage, further construction can begin only after the inspection occurs and approval is granted.

    (b) Inspections of construction and renovation will occur, at a minimum, at the following stages:

    (1) Upon completion of inspection footings and foundations;

    (2) Upon completion of inspection rough-in, roughwiring, and plumbing; and

    (3) At final completion.

    § 256.25 How will I find out that the work is done?

    Your servicing housing office will advise you, in writing, that the work has been completed in compliance with the project contract. Also, you will have a final walk-through of the house with a representative of your servicing housing office. You will be requested to verify that you received the notice of completion of the work by signing a copy of the notice and returning it to your servicing housing office.

    § 256.26 Will I need flood insurance?

    You will need flood insurance if your house is located in an area identified as having special flood hazards under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234, 87 Stat. 975). Your servicing housing office will advise you.

    § 256.27 Is my Federal government-assisted house eligible for services?

    No. The intention of this program is to assist the neediest of the needy, who have never received services from any other Federal entity.

    § 256.28 I have a mobile home; am I eligible for help?

    Yes. If you meet the eligibility criteria in § 256.6 and funding is available, you can receive any of the HIP services identified in § 256.7. If you request Category B services and your mobile home has exterior walls less than three inches thick, you must be considered for Category C services.

    § 256.29 Can HIP resources be combined with other available resources?

    Yes. HIP resources may be supplemented with other available resources (e.g., in-kind assistance; tribal or housing authority; and any other leveraging mechanism identified in § 256.3(d)) to increase the number of HIP recipients.

    § 256.30 Can I appeal actions taken under this part?

    You may appeal action or inaction by a BIA official, in accordance with 25 CFR part 2.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28547 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1003] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Steamboat Slough (Snohomish River), Marysville, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) Railroad Bridge (BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge) across Steamboat Slough (Snohomish River), mile 1.0 near Marysville, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate scheduled bridge rail joint maintenance and replacement. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the maintenance to allow safe movement of work crews.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on November 29, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on December 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1003] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7282 email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    BNSF has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge, mile 1.0, crossing Steamboat Slough (Snohomish River), near Marysville, WA. BNSF requested the BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge remain in the closed-to-navigation position for rail maintenance. This maintenance has been scheduled and is funded as part of the Cascade Corridor Improvement Project.

    The normal operating schedule for this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059, which states the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge is a swing bridge and provides 8 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed-to-navigation position.

    This deviation allows the BNSF Steamboat Slough Bridge at mile 1.0 crossing Steamboat Slough on the Snohomish River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 6 a.m. on November 29, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on December 20, 2015. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1059 at all other times.

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

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

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28538 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0268; FRL 9936-72-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Missouri. This revision includes regulatory amendments that remove the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area, revise certification and testing procedures for stage I vapor recovery systems, prohibit above ground storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities, and include general revisions to better clarify the rule. These revisions to Missouri's SIP do not have an adverse effect on air quality as demonstrated in Missouri's technical demonstration document and EPA's technical support demonstration which is a part of this docket.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0268. 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., 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 at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Brown, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7718, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. EPA's Response to Comments IV. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed?

    EPA is taking final action to approve a SIP revision submitted by the state of Missouri that removes the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area and includes minor revisions to the rule as described below. EPA proposed approval on July 22, 2015 and no comments were received.

    On November 20, 2014, Missouri submitted a request to revise the SIP to include the following revision to Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.220, “Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer” which: (1) Removes the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area, (2) revises certification and testing procedures for the remaining stage I systems consistent with California Air Resources Board (CARB) vapor recovery requirements instead of the Missouri Performance Evaluation and Test Procedures (MOPETP), (3) prohibits above ground storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities, and (4) includes general text revisions to better clarify the rule.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110, section 193 and implementing regulations.

    III. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened July 22, 2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register (80 FR 43371), and closed on August 21, 2015. During this period, EPA received no comments.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to remove the requirements of stage II vapor recovery control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in the St. Louis area, revise certification and testing procedures for stage I vapor recovery systems, prohibit above ground storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities, and include general revisions to better clarify the rule.

    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 the Missouri Regulation “Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer” described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.” EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final 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 final action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 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 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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

    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 AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended by revising the entry for “10-5.220”to read as follows:

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 5-Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-5.220 Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer 11/30/14 11/10/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-28486 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0637; FRL-9933-71-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format for materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations and other materials affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Ohio and approved by EPA.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0637. SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background A. Description of a SIP B. How EPA Enforces SIPs C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP D. How EPA Compiles the SIP E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally Enforceable I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals II. What is EPA doing in this action? II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    This format revision will primarily affect the “Identification of plan” section, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at NARA and the EPA Region 5 Office. EPA is also adding a table in the “Identification of plan” section which summarizes the approval actions that EPA has taken on the nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory portions of the Ohio SIP.

    A. Description of a SIP

    Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) along with other Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

    B. How EPA Enforces SIPs

    Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. The states then submit them to EPA as requested SIP revisions on which EPA must formally act.

    EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet CAA requirements. If and when these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, after notice and comment rulemaking, they are incorporated into the Federally approved SIP and identified in part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans), title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference”, which means that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. This format allows the public to know which measures are contained in a given SIP and to help determine whether the state is enforcing the regulations. It also assists EPA and the public to take enforcement action should a state not enforce its SIP-approved regulations.

    C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP

    The SIP is a dynamic document that the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA must periodically take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations in order to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally approved SIPs.

    EPA has been developing the following: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of title 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures

    D. How EPA Compiles the SIP

    The Federally approved regulations, source-specific permits, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency and approved by EPA have been organized into a “SIP compilation”. The SIP compilation contains the updated regulations, source-specific permits, and nonregulatory provisions approved by EPA through previous rulemaking actions in the Federal Register.

    E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation

    Each SIP compilation contains three parts. Part one contains regulations, part two contains source-specific requirements, and part three contains nonregulatory provisions that have been EPA approved. Each part consists of a table of identifying information for each SIP-approved regulation, each SIP-approved permit, and each nonregulatory SIP provision. In this action, EPA is publishing the tables summarizing the applicable SIP requirements for Ohio. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for updating the compilations and ensuring their accuracy.

    F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation

    EPA's Region 5 Office developed and will maintain the compilation for Ohio. A copy of the full text of Ohio's regulatory and source-specific compilations will also be maintained at NARA.

    G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section

    In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify the enforceable elements of the SIP.

    The revised Ohio Identification of plan section contains five subsections:

    1. Purpose and scope 2. Incorporation by reference 3. EPA-approved regulations 4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements 5. EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally Enforceable

    All revisions to the applicable SIP become Federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable Identification of plan section found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.

    I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals

    To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, EPA retains the original Identification of plan section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first or second section of part 52 for each state subpart. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review its experience with the new system and enforceability of previously approved SIP measures and will decide whether or not to retain the Identification of plan appendices for some further period.

    Although EPA is retaining the original Identification of Plan section, other sections of part 52 are duplicative of the new Identification of Plan section. EPA is therefore removing §§ 52.1881(b) “Regulations for the control of sulfur dioxide in the State of Ohio”, 52.1890 “Removed control measures”, 52.1891 “Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements”, and 52.1919 “Identification of plan-conditional approval” as part of the general “housekeeping” discussed below.

    II. What is EPA doing in this action?

    This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs that have occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are controlled by EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51.

    EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs.

    Under Section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations.

    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 the Ohio Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules is discussed in previous actions taken on the State's rules.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of November 10, 2015. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The changes in format to the “Identification of plan” section for Ohio are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Ohio SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for these “Identification of plan” reorganization actions for Ohio.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 28, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart KK—Ohio
    § 52.1870 [Redesignated as § 52.1894]
    2. Section 52.1870 is redesignated as § 52.1894 and a new § 52.1870 is added to read as follows:
    § 52.1870 Identification of plan.

    (a) Purpose and scope. This section sets forth the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ohio under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and 40 CFR part 51 to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to September 1, 2015, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date after September 1, 2015, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

    (2) EPA Region 5 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the SIP as of September 1, 2015.

    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air Programs Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 or 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.

    (c) EPA approved regulations.

    EPA-Approved Ohio Regulations Ohio citation Title/Subject Ohio
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval
  • date
  • Notes
    Chapter 3745-14 Nitrogen Oxides—Reasonably Available Control Technology 3745-14-01 Definitions and General Provisions 10/18/2010 11/14/2013, 78 FR 68367 3745-14-02 The NOX Authorized Account Representative 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-03 The NOX Budget Permit 5/25/2004 6/27/2005, 70 FR 36845 3745-14-04 Compliance Certification 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-05 NOX Allowance Allocations 7/17/2006 2/13/2008, 73 FR 8197 3745-14-06 The NOX Allowance Tracking System 10/18/2010 11/14/2013, 78 FR 68367 3745-14-07 NOX Allowance Transfers 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-08 Monitoring and Reporting 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-09 NOX Budget Opt-in Units 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-10 Alternative Compliance Plans 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-11 Portland Cement Kilns 7/18/2002 8/5/2003, 68 FR 46089 3745-14-12 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 5/7/2005 2/4/2008, 73 FR 6427 Chapter 3745-15 General Provisions on Air Pollution Control 3745-15-01 Definitions 1/22/2009 5/10/2010, 75 FR 25770 3745-15-02 Purpose 1/25/1980 10/1/1982, 47 FR 43375 3745-15-03 Submission of Emission Information 6/30/2008 2/20/2013, 78 FR 11748 Only (A). 3745-15-04 Measurement of Emissions of Air Contaminants 1/25/1980 10/1/1982, 47 FR 43375 3745-15-05 De Minimis Air Contaminant Source Exemption 1/22/2009 5/10/2010, 75 FR 25770 3745-15-06 Malfunction of Equipment; Scheduled Maintenance; Reporting 1/25/1980 10/1/1982, 47 FR 43375 3745-15-07 Air Pollution Nuisances Prohibited 5/17/1982 8/13/1984, 49 FR 32182 3745-15-08 Circumvention 1/25/1980 10/1/1982, 47 FR 43375 3745-15-09 Severability 1/25/1980 10/1/1982, 47 FR 43375 Chapter 3745-16 Stack Height Requirements 3745-16-01 Definitions 3/5/1986 8/25/1988, 53 FR 32392 3745-16-02 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height Requirements 3/5/1986 8/25/1988, 53 FR 32392 Chapter 3745-17 Particulate Matter Standards 3745-17-01 Definitions 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-02 Ambient Air Quality Standards 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-03 Measurement Methods and Procedures 4/18/2009 4/3/2013, 78 FR 19990 3745-17-04 Compliance Time Schedules 2/1/2008 12/27/2008, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-07 Control of Visible Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 Includes Ohio EPA Engineering Guide 13, revised 6/27/1980, and Engineering Guide 15, revised 7/15/1980. 3745-17-08 Restriction of Emission of Fugitive Dust 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-09 Restrictions on Particulate Emissions and Odors from Incinerators 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-10 Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-11 Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Industrial Processes 12/13/2011 3/29/2013, 78 FR 19128 3745-17-12 Additional Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Specific Air Contaminant Sources in Cuyahoga County 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-13 Additional Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Specific Air Contaminant Sources in Jefferson County 2/1/2008 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65567 3745-17-14 Contingency Plan Requirements for Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 Chapter 3745-18 Sulfur Dioxide Regulations 3745-18-01 Definitions and Incorporation by Reference 4/3/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-02 Ambient Air Quality Standards; Sulfur Dioxide 1/23/2006 3/21/2008,
  • 73 FR 15083
  • 3745-18-03 Attainment Dates and Compliance Time Schedules 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-04 Measurement Methods and Procedures 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 except (D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), (D)(9), (E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4). 3745-18-05 Ambient and Meteorological Monitoring Requirements 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-06 General Emission Limit Provisions 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-07 Adams County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-08 Allen County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-09 Ashland County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-10 Ashtabula County Emissions Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-11 Athens County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-12 Auglaize County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-13 Belmont County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-14 Brown County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-15 Butler County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-16 Carroll County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-17 Champaign County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-18 Clark County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-19 Clermont County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-20 Clinton County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-21 Columbiana County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-22 Coshocton County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-23 Crawford County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-24 Cuyahoga County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-25 Darke County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-26 Defiance County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-27 Delaware County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-28 Erie County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-29 Fairfield County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-30 Fayette County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-31 Franklin County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-32 Fulton County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-33 Gallia County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-34 Geauga County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-35 Greene County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-36 Guernsey County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-37 Hamilton County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-38 Hancock County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-39 Hardin County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-40 Harrison County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-41 Henry County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-42 Highland County Emission Limit 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-43 Hocking County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-44 Holmes County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-45 Huron County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-46 Jackson County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-47 Jefferson County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-48 Knox County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-49 Lake County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-50 Lawrence County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-51 Licking County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-52 Logan County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-53 Lorain County Emission Limits 1/23/2006 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-54 Lucas County Emission Limits 4/3/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-55 Madison County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-56 Mahoning County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-57 Marion County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-58 Medina County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-59 Meigs County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-60 Mercer County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-61 Miami County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-62 Monroe County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-63 Montgomery County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-64 Morgan County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-65 Morrow County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-66 Muskingum County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-67 Noble County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-68 Ottawa County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-69 Paulding County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-70 Perry County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-71 Pickaway County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-72 Pike County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-73 Portage County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-74 Preble County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-75 Putnam County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-76 Richland County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-77 Ross County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-78 Sandusky County Emission Limits 1/23/2006 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-79 Scioto County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-80 Seneca County Emission Limits 1/23/2006 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-81 Shelby County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-82 Stark County Emission Limits 4/3/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-83 Summit County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-84 Trumbull County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-85 Tuscarawas County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-86 Union County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-87 Van Wert County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-88 Vinton County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-89 Warren County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-90 Washington County Emission Limits 1/23/2006 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-91 Wayne County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-92 Williams County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-93 Wood County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 3745-18-94 Wyandot County Emission Limits 2/17/2011 11/19/2013, 78 FR 69299 Chapter 3745-19 Open Burning Standards 3745-19-01 Definitions 7/7/2006 3/21/2008, 73 FR 15081 3745-19-02 Relations to Other Prohibitions 7/7/2006 3/21/2008, 73 FR 15081 3745-19-03 Open Burning in Restricted Areas 7/7/2006 3/21/2008, 73 FR 15081 3745-19-04 Open Burning in Unrestricted Areas 7/7/2006 3/21/2008, 73 FR 15081 3745-19-05 Permission to Individuals and Notification to the Ohio EPA 7/7/2006 3/21/2008, 73 FR 15081 Chapter 3745-21 Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Hydrocarbon Air Quality Standards, and Related Emission Requirements 3745-21-01 Definitions 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-21-02 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Guidelines 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-03 Methods of Ambient Air Quality Measurement 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-04 Compliance Time Schedules 4/2/2009 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-06 Classification of Regions 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-07 Control of Emissions of Organic Materials from Stationary Sources (i.e., Emissions That Are Not Regulated by Rule 3745-21-09, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 of the Administrative Code) 2/18/2008 8/19/2011, 76 FR 51901 3745-21-08 Control of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-09 Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Stationary Sources and Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Facilities 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 except (U)(1)(h). 3745-21-10 Compliance Test Methods and Procedures 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-12 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Commercial Bakery Oven Facilities 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-13 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactors and Distillation Units Employed in SOCMI Chemical Production 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-14 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Process Vents in Batch Operations 4/2/2009 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-15 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-16 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Industrial Wastewater 4/2/2009 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-17 Portable Fuel Containers 6/21/2007 10/14/2009, 74 FR 52691 3745-21-18 Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations 4/2/2009 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-19 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-20 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Marine Coatings) 8/25/2008 7/28/2009, 74 FR 37171 3745-21-21 Storage of Volatile Organic Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks and External Floating Roof Tanks 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-21-22 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing Facilities 2/10/2010 4/6/2011, 73 FR 18893 3745-21-23 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-21-24 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-21-25 Control of VOC Emissions from Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Operations 11/11/2010 7/13/2011, 76 FR 41086 3745-21-27 Boat Manufacturing 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-21-28 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and Sealants 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-21-29 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile and Light-duty Truck Assembly Coating Operations, Heavier Vehicle Assembly Coating Operations, and Cleaning Operations Associated with these Coating Operations 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 Chapter 3745-23 Nitrogen Oxide Standards 3745-23-01 Definitions 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 3745-23-02 Methods of Measurement 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 Chapter 3745-24 Nitrogen Oxide Emission Statements 3745-24-01 Definitions 12/16/2005 9/27/2007, 72 FR 54844 3745-24-02 Applicability 12/16/2005 9/27/2007, 72 FR 54844 3745-24-03 Deadlines for the Submission of the Emission Statements 12/16/2005 9/27/2007, 72 FR 54844 3745-24-04 Emission Statement Requirements 4/1/1994 10/13/1994, 59 FR 51863 Chapter 3745-25 Emergency Episode Standards 3745-25-01 Definitions 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 3745-25-02 Ambient Air Quality Standards 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 3745-25-03 Air Pollution Emergencies and Episode Criteria 8/21/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 3745-25-04 Air Pollution Emergency Emission Control Action Programs 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 3745-25-05 Air Pollution Emergency Orders 4/18/2009 10/26/2010, 75 FR 65572 Chapter 3745-26 I/M Program Rules and Regulations 3745-26-01 Definitions 8/15/1996 1/6/1997, 62 FR 646 3745-26-02 Obligations of the Motor Vehicle Owner in the Anti-tampering and Basic Automobile Inspection and Maintenance Programs 6/13/1994 4/4/1995, 60 FR 16989 3745-26-03 Inspection Station Licensing Procedure 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-04 Licensed Inspection Station Requirements and Obligations 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-05 Provisions for Qualification as a Class B Inspection Station 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-06 Requirements for Certified Inspectors 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-07 Suspension or Revocation of Inspection Station License or Inspector Certification 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-08 Procedure for Station Change of Ownership, Name, or Location, or Cessation of Inspection Operation 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-09 Fee System 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-10 Requirements for Contractors in the Basic Enhanced or Opt-in Enhanced Automobile Inspection and Maintenance Program 6/13/1994 4/4/1995, 60 FR 16989 3745-26-11 Inspection Requirements 5/15/1990 12/17/1993, 58 FR 65933 3745-26-12 Requirements for Motor Vehicle Owners in the Enhanced or Opt-in Enhanced Automobile Inspection and Maintenance Program 8/15/1996 1/6/1997, 62 FR 646 3745-26-13 Requirements for Certified Inspectors in the Enhanced or Opt-in Enhanced Automobile Inspection and Maintenance Program 6/13/1994 4/4/1995, 60 FR 16989 3745-26-14 Enforcement of Program Rules and Regulations for the Enhanced or Opt-in Enhanced Automobile Inspection and Maintenance Program 6/13/1994 4/4/1995, 60 FR 16989 Chapter 3745-31 Permit-to Install New Sources and Permit-to-Install and Operate Program 3745-31-01 Definitions 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Except for (I), (SSS)(1)(b), (QQQQ), (JJJJJ), (BBBBBB). 3745-31-02 Applicability, Requirements, and Obligations 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-03 Exemptions 6/30/2008 2/20/2013, 78 FR 11748 3745-31-04 Applications 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-05 Criteria for Decision by the Director 11/30/2001 1/22/2003, 68 FR 2909 3745-31-06 Completeness Determinations, Processing Requirements, Public Participation, Public Notice, and Issuance 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-07 Termination, Revocation, Expiration, Renewal, Revision and Transfer 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-08 Registration Status Permit-to-operate 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-09 Variances on Operation 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-10 NSR Projects at Existing Emissions Units at a Major Stationary Source 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-11 Attainment Provisions—Ambient Air Increments, Ceilings, and Classifications 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-12 Attainment Provisions—Data Submission Requirements 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-13 Attainment Provisions—Review of Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications, Stationary Source Applicability and Exemptions 5/29/2014 10/28/2014, 79 FR 64119 3745-31-14 Attainment Provisions—Preapplication Analysis 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-15 Attainment Provisions—Control Technology Review 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-16 Attainment Provisions—Major Stationary Source Impact Analysis 5/29/2014 10/28/2014, 79 FR 64119 3745-31-17 Attainment Provisions—Additional Impact Analysis 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-18 Attainment Provisions—Air Quality Models 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-19 Attainment Provisions—Notice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-20 Attainment Provisions—Innovative Control Technology 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-21 Nonattainment Provisions—Review of Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications—Stationary Source Applicability and Exemptions 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-22 Nonattainment Provisions—Conditions for Approval 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Except for (A)(3)(b). 3745-31-23 Nonattainment provisions—stationary sources locating in designated clean or unclassifiable areas which would cause or contribute to a violation of a national ambient air quality standard 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Except for the 1-hour NO2 Significant Impact Level in the table in paragraph (A). 3745-31-24 Nonattainment Provisions—Baseline for Determining Credit for Emission and Air Quality Offsets 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Except for (F). 3745-31-25 Nonattainment provisions—location of offsetting emissions 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-26 Nonattainment Provisions—Offset Ratio Requirements 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Except for (D). 3745-31-27 Nonattainment Provisions—Administrative Procedures for Emission Offsets 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Except for (A)(1)(b). 3745-31-29 General Permit-to-install and General PTIO 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 3745-31-32 Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) 5/29/2014 6/25/2015, 80 FR 36477 Chapter 3745-45 Permit Fees 3745-45-01 Definitions 11/24/1973 11/24/1981, 46 FR 57490 3745-45-02 Certification Fees 11/24/1973 11/24/1981, 46 FR 57490 3745-45-03 Water Discharge Permit Fees 11/24/1973 11/24/1981, 46 FR 57490 3745-45-04 Air Contaminant Source Operation Permit and Variance Fees 11/24/1973 11/24/1981, 46 FR 57490 3745-45-05 Exemptions 11/24/1973 11/24/1981, 46 FR 57490 Chapter 3745-47 Procedural Rules 3745-47-01 Applicability 6/30/1981 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1366 3745-47-02 Construction of Rules and Regulations 6/30/1981 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1366 3745-47-03 Definitions 6/30/1981 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1366 3745-47-05 Draft or Proposed Action 6/30/1981 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1366 3745-47-07 Notice 6/30/1981 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1366 3745-47-08 Contents of Public Notices 6/30/1981 1/10/2003, 68 FR 1366 Only (D). Chapter 3745-71 Lead Emissions 3745-71-01 Definitions and Reference to Materials 10/4/1994 10/27/1995, 60 FR 54946 3745-71-03 Methods of Ambient Air Measurement 10/4/1994 10/27/1995, 60 FR 54946 3745-71-05 Emissions Test Methods and Procedures and Reporting Requirements for New and Existing Sources 10/4/1994 10/27/1995, 60 FR 54946 3745-71-06 Source Specific Emission Limits 10/4/1994 10/27/1995, 60 FR 54946 Chapter 3745-72 Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements 3745-72-01 Applicability 7/17/2006 5/25/2007, 72 FR 29269 Only (A) to (D). 3745-72-02 Definitions 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-72-03 Gasoline Volatility Standards and General Provisions 1/16/2006 5/25/2007, 72 FR 29269 3745-72-04 Transfer Documentation and Recordkeeping 1/16/2006 5/25/2007, 72 FR 29269 3745-72-05 Liability 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-72-06 Defenses 5/12/2011 4/29/2013, 78 FR 24990 3745-72-07 Special Provisions for Alcohol Blends 1/16/2006 5/25/2007, 72 FR 29269 3745-72-08 Quality Assurance and Test Methods 1/16/2006 5/25/2007, 72 FR 29269 Chapter 3745-75 Infectious Waste Incinerator Limitations 3745-75-01 Applicability, Definitions, and Reference to Materials 3/23/2004 7/5/2007, 72 FR 36605 3745-75-02 Emission Limits 3/23/2004 7/5/2007, 72 FR 36605 Except (I)(1), (I)(2), (I)(4), and (I)(7). 3745-75-03 Design Parameters and Operating Restrictions 3/23/2004 7/5/2007, 72 FR 36605 3745-75-04 Monitoring Requirements 3/23/2004 7/5/2007, 72 FR 36605 3745-75-05 Recordkeeping and Inspections 3/23/2004 7/5/2007, 72 FR 36605 3745-75-06 Certification and Compliance Time Schedules 3/23/2004 7/5/2007, 72 FR 36605 Chapter 3745-101 Transportation Conformity 3745-101-02 Definitions 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-03 Applicability, Priority, and Frequency of Conformity Determinations 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 Only (A), (B), (C), (D), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L). 3745-101-05 Content of Transportation Plans 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-06 Relationship with NEPA and Fiscal Constraints 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-07 Criteria and Procedures for Conformity Determination, Assumptions, Emissions Model, and Consultation 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 Only (A), (B), and (C) Except (C)(1)(a) and (C)(2)(a). 3745-101-08 Criteria and Procedures for Implementation of TCMs, Current Conformity, and Projects from a Plan and TIP 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-09 Localized CO and PM10 Violations and Compliance with PM10 Control Measures 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-11 Criteria and Procedures: Emission Reductions in Areas without Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-12 Consequences of Control Strategy Implementation Plan Failures 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 Except for (A)(2). 3745-101-13 Requirements for Adoption or Approval of Projects by Other Recipients of Funds Designated Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 Except for (A)(1). 3745-101-14 Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation-related Emissions 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-15 Procedures for Determining Localized CO and PM10 Concentrations (Hot-spot Analysis) 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-17 Enforceability of Design Concept and Scope and Project-level Mitigation and Control Measures 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-18 Exempt Projects 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 3745-101-19 Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects 2/16/1999 5/30/2000, 65 FR 34395 Chapter 3745-102 General Federal Action Conformity 3745-102-01 Purpose 8/21/1995 3/11/1996, 61 FR 9644 3745-102-02 Definitions 8/21/1995 3/11/1996, 61 FR 9644 3745-102-03 Applicability 8/21/1995 3/11/1996, 61 FR 9644 3745-102-04 Analysis, Other Requirements 8/21/1995 3/11/1996, 61 FR 9644 3745-102-05 Conformity Determinations 8/21/1995 3/11/1996, 61 FR 9644 3745-102-06 Mitigation of Air Quality Impacts 8/21/1995 3/11/1996, 61 FR 9644 Chapter 3745-109 Emissions Trading Programs 3745-109-01 CAIR NOX Annual, CAIR SO2, and CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Programs Definitions and General Provisions 7/16/2009 11/24/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-02 CAIR Designated Representative for CAIR NOX Sources 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-03 Permits 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-04 CAIR NOX Allowance Allocations 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-05 CAIR NOX Allowance Tracking System 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-06 CAIR NOX Allowance Transfers 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-07 Monitoring and Reporting 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-08 CAIR NOX Opt-in Units 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-09 CAIR Designated Representative for CAIR SO2 Sources 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-10 Permits 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-11 CAIR SO2 Allowance Tracking System 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-12 CAIR SO2 Allowance Transfers 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-13 Monitoring and Reporting 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-14 CAIR SO2 Opt-in Units 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-15 CAIR Designated Representative for CAIR NOX Ozone Season Sources 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-16 Permits 9/27/2007 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-17 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Allocations 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-18 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Tracking System 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-19 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Allowance Transfers 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-20 Monitoring and Reporting 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 3745-109-21 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Opt-in Units 7/16/2009 9/25/2009, 74 FR 48857 Chapter 3745-112 Volatile Organic Compound Limits in Consumer Products 3745-112-01 Definitions 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-02 Applicability 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-03 Standards 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-04 Exemptions 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-05 Administrative Requirements 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-06 Reporting Requirements 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-07 Variances 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745 3745-112-08 Test Methods 9/15/2007 8/13/2009, 74 FR 40745

    (d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.

    EPA-Approved Ohio Source-Specific Provisions Name of source Number Ohio
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Comments
    AK Steel Corporation Director's Final Findings and Orders (DFFO) 8/18/1995 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 Excello Specialty PTI 13-2396 12/11/1991 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 Ford-Cleveland Casting DFFO 7/10/1995 5/6/1996, 61 FR 20139 Ford-Engine Plant 1 DFFO 5/31/1996 2/25/1997, 62 FR 8383 Hilton Davis PTI 14-2096 6/12/1991 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 International Mill Services DFFO 7/12/1995 5/6/1996, 61 FR 20139 International Paper Company DFFO 8/18/1995 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 Luria Brothers DFFO 7/10/1995 5/6/1996, 61 FR 20139 Midwest Mica & Insulation Co DFFO 8/18/1995 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 Morgan Adhesives Co DFFO 7/5/2000 4/17/2001, 74 FR 19721 P.H. Glatfelter Co.-Chillicothe PTI P0103673 3/7/2011 7/2/2012, 77 FR 39177 Regional haze BART emissions limits. Reilly Industries, Inc DFFO 8/18/1995 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 Sprayon Products, Inc DFFO 8/18/1995 4/25/1996, 61 FR 18255 T&B Foundry Company DFFO 7/10/1995 5/6/1996, 61 FR 20139 United Ready Mix DFFO 7/10/1995 5/6/1996, 61 FR 20139 Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel Corporation DFFO 10/31/1995 6/12/1996, 61 FR 29662

    (e) EPA approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions.

    EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Title Applicable geographical or non-attainment area State date EPA approval Comments Legislative Provisions Authority to Require NSR Permits Statewide 1/25/1982 ORC 3704.03 (F). Local Permits for Burning Construction Debris Statewide 7/15/1985 ORC 3704.11 (C). Ohio EPA Authority Statewide 1/25/1982 ORC 3704 (summary). Requirements for Board Members Statewide 1/25/1982 ORC 102 (summary). Definition of Air Contaminant Statewide ORC 3704.01 (B); submitted 8/26/1982. Summary of Criteria Pollutant Maintenance Plan Ozone 1-Hour Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) 6/28/1999 7/5/2000, 65 FR 37879 Ozone 1-Hour Columbiana County 3/25/1994 3/10/1995, 59 FR 48395 Ozone 1-Hour Columbus (Franklin, Delaware and Licking Counties) 1/1/1994 4/1/1996, 61 FR 3591 Ozone 1-Hour Dayton-Springfield (Miami, Montgomery, Clark, and Greene Counties) 11/8/1993 7/5/1995, 60 FR 22289 Ozone 1-Hour Jefferson County 3/25/1994 3/10/1995, 58 FR 66334 Ozone 1-Hour Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) and Canton (Stark County) 3/25/1994 4/1/1996, 61 FR 3319 Ozone 8-Hour Canton (Stark County) 6/20/2006 6/15/2007, 72 FR 27648 Ozone 8-Hour Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) 12/14/2009 5/11/2010, 75 FR 26118 Ozone 8-Hour Cleveland (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties) 3/17/2009 9/15/2009, 74 FR 47414 Ozone 8-Hour Columbiana County 2/15/2007 6/12/2007, 72 FR 32190 Ozone 8-Hour Columbus (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Knox, Licking, and Madison Counties) 3/17/2009 9/15/2009, 74 FR 47404 Ozone 8-Hour Dayton-Springfield (Miami, Montgomery, Clark, and Greene Counties) 11/6/2006 8/13/2007, 72 FR 45169 Ozone 8-Hour Lima (Allen County) 6/20/2006 6/15/2007, 72 FR 27648 Correction: 72 FR 36599, effective 7/5/2007. Ozone 8-Hour Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington County) 9/22/2006 6/15/2007, 72 FR 27652 Correction: 72 FR 36599, effective 7/5/2007. Ozone 8-Hour Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County) 7/31/2006 6/15/2007, 72 FR 27640 Correction: 72 FR 36599, effective 7/5/2007. Ozone 8-Hour Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties) 12/22/2006 8/9/2007, 72 FR 44784 Ozone 8-Hour Wheeling (Belmont County) 6/20/2006 6/15/2007, 72 FR 27644 Correction: 72 FR 36599, effective 7/5/2007 Ozone 8-Hour Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) 2/15/2007 6/12/2007, 72 FR 32190 PM-10 Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties 5/22/2000 1/10/2001, 65 FR 77308 PM2.5 (1997) Canton (Stark County) 6/26/2012 10/22/2013, 78 FR 62459 PM2.5 (1997) Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) 1/25/2011 12/23/2011, 76 FR 80253 PM2.5 (1997) Cleveland (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties) 10/5/2011 9/18/2013, 78 FR 57270 PM2.5 (1997) Columbus (Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties) 6/3/2011 11/7/2013, 78 FR 66845 PM2.5 (1997) Dayton-Springfield (Clark, Greene, and Montgomery Counties) 6/1/2011 9/26/2013, 78 FR 59258 PM2.5 (1997) Huntington-Ashland (Adams, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties) 5/4/2011 12/31/2012, 77 FR 76883 PM2.5 (1997) Parkersburg-Marietta (Washington County) 2/29/2012 8/29/2013, 78 FR 53275 PM2.5 (1997) Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County) 4/16/2012 9/18/2013, 78 FR 57273 PM2.5 (1997) Wheeling (Belmont County) 4/16/2012 8/29/2013, 78 FR 53275 PM2.5 (2006) Canton (Stark County) 6/26/2012 10/22/2013, 78 FR 62459 PM2.5 (2006) Cleveland (Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties) 5/30/2012 9/18/2013, 78 FR 57270 PM2.5 (2006) Steubenville-Weirton (Jefferson County) 4/16/2012 9/18/2013, 78 FR 57273 SO2 (1971) Center Township (Morgan County) and Waterford Township (Washington County) 6/25/1992 9/21/1994, 59 FR 48403 SO2 (1971) Lake County and Steubenville/Mingo Junction (Jefferson County) 10/26/1995 8/30/1999, 64 FR 47113 SO2 (1971) Franklin Township (Coshocton County), Addison Township (Gallia County), and Lorain County 3/20/2000 6/5/2000, 65 FR 35577 SO2 (1971) Cuyahoga and Lucas Counties 9/27/2003 7/8/2004, 69 FR 41342 CO (1979) Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) 10/20/2005 6/1/2006, 71 FR 31097 Lead (2008) Bellefontaine (Logan County) 10/29/2013 7/28/2014, 79 FR 43655 Includes approval of the 10/29/2013 emissions inventory. Infrastructure Requirements Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Statewide 12/5/2007 7/13/2011, 76 FR 41075 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A))-(C), (D)(ii), (E)-(H), and (J)-(M). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 12/5/2007 7/13/2011, 76 FR 41075 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(ii), (E)-(H), and (J)-(M). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 9/4/2009 10/29/2012, 77 FR 65478 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i) and (E)(iii), (F)-(H), (J) {except PSD}, and (K)-(M). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 6/7/2013 4/7/2014, 79 FR 18999 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS Statewide 10/12/2011 10/6/2014, 79 FR 60075 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2) (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and the PSD portion of (J). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide 2/8/2013 10/6/2014, 79 FR 60075 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2) (A) to (H) and (J) to (M). Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Statewide 12/27/2012 10/16/2014, 79 FR 60219 Addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2) (A) to (H) and (J) to (M). Summary of Plan Element Particulate Matter (PM-10) Plan Statewide 11/14/1991 6/27/1994, 59 FR 27464 Summary of the 15 Percent (%) Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan Control Measures for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions Cincinnati 15% Plan Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) 3/19/1994 3/30/1998, 63 FR 4188
    § 52.1890 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve § 52.1890.
    § 52.1891 [Removed and Reserved]
    4. Remove and reserve § 52.1891.
    5. In the newly redesignated § 52.1894 revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 52.1894 Original Identification of plan section.

    (a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Ohio” and all revisions submitted by Ohio that were federally approved prior to September 1, 2015.

    § 52.1919 [Removed and Reserved]
    6. Remove and reserve § 52.1919.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28498 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 697 [Docket No. 150610515-5999-02] RIN 0648-BF16 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies the timing of the Lobster Conservation Management Area 4 seasonal closure. This action is necessary to ensure fishery regulations for the lobster fishery in Federal waters remain consistent with the Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster and previously implemented state measures and the intent of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. This action is intended to ensure fishing effort is reduced in Area 4.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The American lobster fishery is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission under Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP). We manage the portion of the fishery conducted in Federal waters from 3 to 200 miles offshore, based on management recommendations made by the Commission.

    The American lobster management unit is divided between two lobster stocks and seven Lobster Conservation Management Areas.

    ER10NO15.000

    The 2009 stock assessment indicated that the Southern New England American lobster stock, which includes all or part of six areas including Area 4, is at a low level of abundance. The stock is experiencing persistent recruitment failure caused by a combination of environmental factors and continued fishing mortality. To address the poor condition of the stock, the Commission adopted Addendum XVII to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP in February of 2012. The measures in the addendum were intended to reduce fishing exploitation on the Southern New England lobster stock by 10 percent. Copies of the addendum are available on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/amLobsterAddendumXVII_feb2012.pdf.

    Consistent with the Commission's action in Addendum XVII, we issued complementary regulations (80 FR 2028; January 15, 2015) for Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5. Measures for Area 4 included a mandatory v-notching requirement for egg-bearing female lobsters and an annual seasonal closure from February 1-March 31. States came into compliance with Addendum XVII by January 1, 2013.

    Approved Measures

    We are changing the Area 4 seasonal closure from February 1-March 31 to April 30-May 31, consistent with the Commission's recommendation. The American Lobster Technical Committee analyzed the effectiveness of the initial February 1-March 31 Area 4 closure after it was implemented by the states and presented these results to the Commission in late 2014. The Technical Committee's analysis indicated that the February and March closure in Area 4 only achieved a 3.7-percent reduction in effort, falling short of the required 10-percent reduction. The Technical Committee recommended that the Lobster Board shift the annual seasonal closure from February 1-March 31 to April 30-May 31. The Technical Committee projected that this shift would achieve a 10.1-percent reduction in effort. The Lobster Board reviewed this analysis and approved the Area 4 seasonal closure modification during several meetings in late 2014 and early 2015. The Lobster Board also recommended that all jurisdictions change the closure date to April 30-May 31 annually. New York and New Jersey (the two states bordering Area 4) have already adjusted their regulatory closure to this later date. The changes implemented by this rule ensure consistency between state and Federal Area 4 management measures.

    Comments and Responses

    Our proposed rule, published August 5, 2015 (80 FR 46533), solicited comments through September 4, 2015. We received three comments, one from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, one from the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, and one from the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, in response to the proposed rule. A summary of the comments and our responses is provided below.

    Comment 1: All three comments supported our action to modify the date of the closure to April 30-May 31 to ensure consistency between American lobster management in state and Federal waters.

    Response: We agree and are implementing through this rule the annual seasonal closure shift to April 30-May 31.

    Comment 2: Both Associations suggested edits to the vessel transiting provisions of the Area 4 seasonal closure. Both groups asked that we clarify that lobster caught in other Lobster Conservation Management Areas could be retained on board while a vessel transits Area 4.

    Response: We agree that a lobster vessel transiting Area 4 during the closure should be allowed to possess lobster legally caught in other areas. All of the seasonal closures (in Areas 4, 5, and the Outer Cape) contain transiting provisions allowing a vessel to transit through the area while closed, with gear properly stowed. The intent of the transiting provision is to allow a vessel to fish in an open area and transit through a seasonally closed area to return to port.

    The wording of the proposed rule already allows a lobster vessel to transit an area closure with lobsters legally caught in other areas. As a result, although we acknowledge the commenters' concerns, we are not modifying the Area 4 transiting provisions from those we proposed.

    In addition, changing transiting regulations for Area 4 would create an inconsistency with the transiting regulations for other areas. Changing the transiting provisions in Area 4 could lead industry to believe that lobsters could not be retained onboard while transiting Areas 5 or the Outer Cape. We do not want to create additional confusion. Therefore, we are not modifying the transiting provisions.

    Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be consistent with the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Act, the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

    This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132. The approved measures are based upon the American Lobster ISFMP that was created by and is overseen by the states. These measures were a result of a modification to Addendum XVII measures, which was approved by the Commission's American Lobster Board, recommended by the Commission for Federal adoption, and are in place at the state level. Consequently, NMFS has consulted with the states in the creation of the ISFMP, which makes recommendations for Federal action. Additionally, these measures would not pre-empt state law and would do nothing to directly regulate the states.

    This final rule does not contain a collection of information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of their regulations on small entities. The objective of the RFA is to consider the impacts of a rulemaking on small entities, and the capacity of those affected by regulations to bear the direct and indirect costs of regulation. We prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this action as required by section 603 of the RFA. The FRFA describes the economic impact this final rule would have on small entities. The approved management measure would affect small entities (i.e., Federal lobster permit holders) fishing in Southern New England, specifically in Area 4.

    A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency's Assessment of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such Comments

    No public comments were submitted about the IRFA. See the Comments and Responses section for general comments received on the rule's measures.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply

    The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: Small businesses; small organizations; and small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards define whether a business entity is small and, thus, eligible for Government programs and preferences reserved for “small business” concerns. Size standards have been established (and recently modified) for all for-profit economic activities or industries in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Designations of large and small entities were based on each entity's 3-year average landings. For entities landing a majority of revenue in shellfish (NAICS 111412), the threshold for “large” is $5.5 million. For entities landing a plurality of revenue in finfish (NAICS 111411), the threshold for “large” is $20.5 million. The number of directly regulated entities for purposes of analyzing the economic impacts and describing those that are small businesses is selected based on permits held. Because this regulation applies only to the businesses that hold Area 4 permits, only those business entities are evaluated. Business entities that do not own vessels with directly regulated permits are not described.

    Of the 47 small entities identified in the IRFA, 23 are considered a shellfish business, 12 are considered a finfish business, and 12 could not be identified as either because even though they had a lobster permit (in Area 4), they had no earned revenue from fishing activity. Because they had no revenue in the last 3 years, they would be considered small by default and would also be considered as latent effort.

    The entity definition used by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Social Sciences Branch uses only unique combinations of owners. That is, entities are not combined if they have a shared owner. Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines affiliation as: Affiliation may arise among two or more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated (13 CFR 121.103(f)).

    The recent addition of vessel owner information to the permit data allows us to better define fishing “businesses.” The vessel ownership data identify all the individual people who own fishing vessels. Vessels can be grouped together according to common owners, which can then be treated as a fishing business for purposes of RFA analyses. Revenues summed across all vessels in the group and the activities that generate those revenues form the basis for determining whether the entity is a large or small business. Ownership data are available for those potentially impacted by this action from 2010 onward.

    A person who does not currently own a fishing vessel, but who has owned a qualifying vessel that has sunk, been destroyed, or transferred to another person, must apply for and receive a “confirmation of history” (CPH) if the fishing and permit history of such vessel has been retained lawfully by the applicant. Issuance of a valid CPH preserves the eligibility of the applicant to apply for a permit for a replacement vessel based on the qualifying vessel's fishing and permit history at a subsequent time. The ownership data based on the permits held do not contain information on CPH permits. A total of six CPH's exist for lobster Area 4.

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.

    Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes

    Due to the expected high rate of dual permitting and that the states are already compliant with the revised Area 4 seasonal closure, the majority of Federal vessels must already abide by these requirements and have already been impacted. For those vessels not dually permitted, this change in the Area 4 seasonal closure can be expected to have a limited economic impact to permit holders. Because the regulations are consistent with Commission recommendations and current state regulations, alternative measures, such as maintain the status quo, would likely create inconsistencies and regulatory disconnects with the states and would likely worsen potential economic impacts. Therefore, the status quo was not considered reasonable, and for similar reasons, other alternatives that maintained disconnected state and Federal closures were not considered.

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, we will send a small entity compliance guide to all Federal permit holders affected by this action. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., information bulletin) are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at the following Web site: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/lobster/index.html.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697

    Fisheries, fishing.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 697 is amended as follows:

    PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

    2. In § 697.7, revise paragraphs (c)(1)(xxx)(B) to read as follows:
    § 697.7 Prohibitions.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (xxx) * * *

    (B) Area 4 seasonal closure. The Federal waters of Area 4 shall be closed to lobster fishing from April 30 through May 31.

    (1) Lobster fishing is prohibited in Area 4 during this seasonal closure. Federal lobster permit holders are prohibited from possessing or landing lobster taken from Area 4 during the seasonal closure.

    (2) All lobster traps must be removed from Area 4 waters before the start of the seasonal closure and may not be re-deployed into Area 4 waters until after the seasonal closure ends. Federal trap fishers are prohibited from setting, hauling, storing, abandoning, or in any way leaving their traps in Area 4 waters during this seasonal closure.

    (i) Lobster fishers have a 1-week grace period from May 24 to May 31 to re-set gear in the closed area. During this grace period, re-set traps may not be re-hauled and any Federal lobster permit holder re-setting Area 4 traps during this grace period is prohibited from possessing on board any lobster regardless of the area from which the lobster may have been harvested.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (3) Federal lobster permit holders are prohibited from possessing or carrying lobster traps aboard a vessel in Area 4 waters during this seasonal closure unless the vessel is operating subject to the grace period identified in paragraph (c)(1)(xxx)(B)(2)(i) of this section or is transiting through Area 4 pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(xxx)(B)(5) of this section.

    (4) The Area 4 seasonal closure relates only to Area 4. The restrictive provisions of §§ 697.3 and 697.4(a)(7)(v) do not apply to this closure. Federal lobster permit holders with an Area 4 designation and another Lobster Management Area designation on their Federal lobster permits would not have to similarly remove their lobster gear from the other designated management areas.

    (5) Transiting Area 4. Federal lobster permit holders may possess lobster traps on their vessels in Area 4 during the seasonal closure only if:

    (i) The trap gear is stowed; and

    (ii) The vessel is transiting the Area 4. For the purposes of this section, transiting shall mean passing through Area 4 without stopping, to reach a destination outside Area 4.

    (6) The Regional Administrator may authorize a permit holder or vessel owner to haul ashore lobster traps from Area 4 during the seasonal closure without having to engage in the exempted fishing process in § 697.22, if the permit holder or vessel owner can establish the following:

    (i) That the lobster traps were not able to be hauled ashore before the seasonal closure due to incapacity, vessel/mechanical inoperability, and/or poor weather; and

    (ii) That all lobsters caught in the subject traps will be immediately returned to the sea.

    (iii) The Regional Administrator may condition this authorization as appropriate in order to maintain the overall integrity of the closure.

    [FR Doc. 2015-28544 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 217 Tuesday, November 10, 2015 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 870 RIN 3206-AN04 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program: Providing Option C Coverage for Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners; Withdrawal AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) hereby withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) regulations to allow children of same-sex domestic partners living in states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry to be covered as family members under an eligible individual's FEGLI Option C enrollment.

    DATES:

    The proposed rule, published on October 15, 2014, in the Federal Register (79 FR 61788 -61790), is withdrawn as of November 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald Brown, Policy Analyst, (202) 606-0004, or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Personnel Management is withdrawing the proposed rule published October 15, 2014 entitled, “Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program: Providing Option C Coverage for Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners” (79 FR 61788-61790). The proposed regulation would have allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living in states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry to be covered as family members under an eligible individual's FEGLI Option C enrollment. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. As a result, all states are required to allow same-sex couples to marry, meaning no additional children would be eligible for coverage based on the proposed rule. For this reason, the Office of Personnel Management withdraws the proposed rule to amend the FEGLI regulation to allow children of same-sex domestic partners living in states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry to be covered as family members under an eligible individual's FEGLI Option C enrollment.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28569 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (PWC) PT6A-60AG, -65AG, -67AF, and -67AG turboprop engines. This proposed AD was prompted by incidents of corrosion and perforation of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward fuel control units (FCUs). This proposed AD would require removing the Woodward FCU and installing an FCU that is eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the Woodward FCU, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11, 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 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Web site: www.pwc.ca. 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-2015-3732; 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2015-3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this NPRM.

    Discussion

    The Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canada AD CF-2015-23, dated July 23, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been in-service incidents involving corrosion and perforation of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward Fuel Control Units (FCU) fitted to PT6A-60, -65 and -67 series engines. In certain instances, associated bellows leakage has resulted in loss of engine power, in-flight shutdowns (IFSD) and even accidents. Engines installed on the aeroplanes that are used for crop dusting, due to the operational environment, are more susceptible to corrosion damage to the subject bellows.

    Loss of engine power or shut down in flight by itself usually is not considered a catastrophic event. However, on an aeroplane with single engine installation, an engine power loss or IFSD at a critical phase of flight could adversely affect the safe operation of the aeroplane.

    This AD affects the PT6A-60AG, PT6A-65AG, PT6A-67AF, and PT6A-67AG engine models because they have the affected Woodward FCUs installed.

    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-2015-3732.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    PWC has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2011 and SB No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision 1, dated May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing Woodward FCUs. 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 Canada, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, they have 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 Transport Canada Civil Aviation and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This NPRM would require replacing the Woodward FCU.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 341 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $1,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $384,478.

    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): Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (Type Certificate previously held by Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., and United Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.): Docket No. FAA-2015-3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 11, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (PWC) PT6A-60AG, BS919 and BS1048 with pre-SB No. PT6A-72-13402, dated August 12, 2005 configuration; PT6A-65AG, BS708, BS903, BS1101, and BS1102 with pre-SB PT6A-72-13408, dated July 3, 2006 configuration; PT6A-67AF; and PT6A-67AG turboprop engines with Woodward fuel control units (FCUs) installed.

    (d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by incidents of corrosion and perforation of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward FCUs. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the Woodward FCU, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

    (e) Actions and Compliance

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

    (1) For PWC PT6A-67AF and PT6A-67AG engines, within 500 flight hours (FHs) or one year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraphs 3.A. and 3.C. of PWC Service Bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2011 to replace the FCU.

    (2) For PWC PT6A-60AG BS919 and BS1048 engines with pre-SB No. PT6A-72-13402 configuration, within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraph 3.C.(1) and 3.C.(3) of PWC SB No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision 1, dated May 26, 2015 to replace the FCU.

    (3) For PWC PT6A-65AG BS708, BS903, BS1101, and BS1102 engines with pre-SB PT6A-72-13408 configuration, within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) and 3.A.(3) of PWC SB No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision 1, dated May 26, 2015 to replace the FCU.

    (f) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph (e) of this AD if you performed the actions before the effective date of this AD in accordance with PWC SB No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2009; or SB No. PT6A-72-13473, dated March 12, 2015; or SB No. PT6A-72-13408, Revision 1, dated March 12, 2015; or earlier versions.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (h) Related Information

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

    (2) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2015-23, dated July 23, 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-2015-3732.

    (3) PWC SB No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2011 and SB No. 13473, Revision 1, dated May 26, 2015, can be obtained from PWC, using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this proposed AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Web site: www.pwc.ca.

    (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 November 4, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28534 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-04-03 that applies to certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines. AD 2015-04-03 requires inspection of the sealing sleeve on the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) turbine support internal oil feed tube and removal of those sealing sleeves affected by AD 2015-04-03. This proposed AD would require removal of either the affected sealing sleeve only or both the affected sealing sleeve and the oil feed tube. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11, 2016.

    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 Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. 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-2014-0561; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information, 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:

    Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; 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-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-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

    On February 11, 2015, we issued AD 2015-04-03, Amendment 39-18105 (80 FR 9380, February 23, 2015), for certain RR RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines. AD 2015-04-03 requires inspection of the sealing sleeve on the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube and removal of those sealing sleeves affected by AD 2015-04-03. AD 2015-04-03 resulted from fractures of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube. We issued AD 2015-04-03 to prevent failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2015-04-03 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2015-04-03, Amendment 39-18105 (80 FR 9380, February 23, 2015), we received a report of high oil consumption on an engine that did not have an affected sealing sleeve. The manufacturer's investigation revealed that certain oil feed tube threaded end adapters were manufactured with the outer diameter larger than the drawing maximum, which can cause binding of the sliding joint and ultimately lead to low-cycle fatigue failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube. Also since we issued AD 2015-04-03, the European Aviation Safety Agency has issued AD 2015-0105R1, dated August 18, 2015, which requires inspection of the affected sealing sleeve and removal of the affected sealing sleeve or removal of both the affected sealing sleeve and oil feed tube.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    RR has issued RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015 and RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-H754, dated October 1, 2014. The Alert NMSB No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015, provides guidance on identification of the sealing sleeve, part number (P/N) FW15003, and replacement of the non-conforming sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, with a conforming sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003. The SB No. RB.211-72-H754, dated October 1, 2014, provides information on the replacement of the sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, and oil feed tube, P/N FW14193, with a sealing sleeve, P/N KH28323 and oil feed tube, P/N KH28324. 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 removal of the affected sealing sleeve only or both the affected sealing sleeve and the oil feed tube. Both corrective actions eliminate the unsafe condition caused by affected sealing sleeves and/or affected oil feed tube threaded end adapters.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 58 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.2 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost approximately $5,850 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $345,216.

    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 have 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 that the 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-04-03, Amendment 39-18105 (80 FR 9380, February 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-04-03”), and adding the following new AD: Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 11, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2015-04-03.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines, all serial numbers, except those engines:

    (1) That have had Modification 72-H754 applied in production, or

    (2) that have been modified in accordance with RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-H754, dated October 1, 2014, or

    (3) with sealing sleeve, part number (P/N) FW15003, with markings 102013, 112013, or 102013L.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fractures of the high-pressure/intermediate pressure (HP/IP) turbine support internal oil feed tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) If sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, is installed without markings 102013, 112013, or 102013L, or if the markings cannot be sufficiently identified, then within 1,600 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first:

    (i) Remove the affected sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, and replace it with a sealing sleeve eligible for installation. Use paragraph 3.A.(4)(b) of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015, to perform the part replacement, or,

    (ii) Remove the affected sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, and the oil feed tube, P/N FW14193, and replace with parts eligible for installation. Use paragraph 3.B. or 3.C., as appropriate, of RR SB No. RB.211-72-H754, dated October 1, 2014, to perform the parts replacement.

    (2) Reserved.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to 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 Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0105R1, dated, August 18, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0561.

    (3) RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015 and RR SB No. RB.211-72-H754, dated October 1, 2014, can be obtained from RR, using the contact information in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (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 November 2, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28533 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0475; FRL-9936-87-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County's Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Four Industry Categories for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to convert the conditional approval of revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) to a full approval. The SIP revision included amendments to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control, and meets the requirement to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards for the following categories: Miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Upon review of the submittal, EPA found that the average monomer volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits were referenced but not included in the regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. ACHD has revised the regulation and submitted the table of VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials to EPA in order to address specific RACT requirements for Allegheny County. EPA is, therefore, proposing to convert the conditional approval to a full approval of the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0475 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected].

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0475, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0475. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not 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 in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201 and at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).

    CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information to assist them in determining RACT for VOC from various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation as RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the CTG will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in the CTG are based upon available data and information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.

    In 1977 and 1978, EPA published CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. After reviewing the 1977/1978 CTGs for these industries, conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for these industries, and taking into account any information that has become available since then, EPA developed new CTGs entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-003; September 2008); Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-duty Assembly Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-006; September 2008); Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-005; September 2008); Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-004; September 2008).

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On November 15, 2013, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted to EPA on behalf of ACHD a SIP revision concerning the adoption of the EPA CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials in Allegheny County. Allegheny County is adopting EPA's CTG standards for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. These regulations, with a state effective date of June 8, 2013, are contained in the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control sections 2105.83 (Control of VOC Emissions from Miscellaneous Metal and/or Plastic Parts Surface Coating Processes), 2105.84 (Control of VOC Emissions from Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings), 2105.85 (Control of VOC Emissions from Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives), and 2105.86 (Control of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials) in order to establish: (1) Applicability for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; (2) exemptions; (3) record-keeping and work practice requirements; and (4) emission limitations. Upon review of the November 15, 2013 submittal, EPA found that a table of average monomer VOC content limit for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials was referenced; however, the table was erroneously not included in the regulation. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, PADEP submitted on behalf of ACHD a letter dated July 16, 2014 committing to submit a SIP revision to EPA addressing this error in order to satisfy the RACT requirements under the 8-hour ozone standard for Allegheny County.

    On November 26, 2014 (79 FR 70470), EPA conditionally approved the SIP revisions concerning the adoption of these CTGs. On September 9, 2015, PADEP submitted to EPA on behalf of ACHD a supplemental SIP revision containing the missing table of VOC content limits, and thereby addressing the erroneous deficiency in the regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to convert from conditional approval to full approval the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted on November 15, 2013, as supplemented with the September 9, 2015 SIP submittal, which consists of amendments to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control for adopting RACT for sources covered by EPA's CTG standards for the following categories: Miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the conditional approval was based upon a letter from PADEP on behalf of ACHD dated July 16, 2014 committing to submit to EPA, no later than twelve months from EPA's final conditional approval of ACHD's adoption of CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, an additional SIP revision to address the missing table of average monomer VOC content in the current regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. On September 9, 2015, PADEP on behalf of ACHD submitted a supplemental SIP revision containing the table of monomer VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. EPA has determined that ACHD has satisfied this condition, and therefore, EPA is proposing to remove the conditional nature of its approval and replace it with a full approval of Allegheny County's adoption of CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials will. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania rules regarding controls of VOC emissions discussed in Section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the EPA Region III office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 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 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 proposed rule, pertaining to ACHD's adoption of CTG standards for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, 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.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 28, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28645 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 147 [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0372; FRL-9936-90-OW] Request for Comment: Kentucky Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Primacy Approval AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public comment period and opportunity to request a public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby gives public notice that the EPA has received a complete application from the Commonwealth of Kentucky requesting approval of its Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Class II injection wells. The EPA has determined the application contains all the required elements; see the ADDRESSES section for information on how to access the application documents. Public comments are requested and any member of the public may request a public hearing. This application would allow the Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas to regulate all Class II injection wells in Kentucky.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before December 23, 2015. Requests for a public hearing must be received by December 9, 2015. Requests for a hearing should be mailed to Nancy Marsh (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). The EPA will determine by December 11, 2015, whether there is sufficient interest to warrant a public hearing. If determined to be warranted, the public hearing will be held on December 16, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. in Conference Room #D16 at the Department for Natural Resources, #2 Hudson Hollow, Frankfort, KY 40601. For additional information regarding the public hearing, please contact Nancy Marsh.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0372 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.Comments should also be sent to Nancy Marsh (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

    Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations:

    (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Library, 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The Library is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Library is (404) 562-8190.

    (2) Kentucky Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 1025 Capital Center Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. The Office is open from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Please contact Marvin Combs at (502) 573-0147.

    (3) Kentucky Underground Injection Control Program, Primacy Approval: EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OW Docket is (202) 566-2426.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Marsh, GW & UIC Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; telephone number: (404) 562-9350; fax number: (404) 562-9439; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commonwealth of Kentucky has submitted an application to regulate Class II injection wells in the State. The application was determined to be complete because it contained all of the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 145.22(a), including: A letter from the Governor requesting program approval; a complete description of the State Underground Injection Control program; a statement of legal authority; a memorandum of agreement between the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the EPA, Region 4; copies of all applicable rules and forms; and a showing of the state's public participation process prior to program submission.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28662 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 27 [GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket Nos. 14-170 and 05-211, Report No. 3031] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by: Kim M. Keenan, on behalf of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council; Donald L. Herman, Jr., on behalf of the Rural-26 DE Coalition; and D. Cary Mitchell, on behalf of the Blooston Rural Carriers.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before November 25, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before December 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie Barnes, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1612, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3031, released November 4, 2015. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Public Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Public Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Petition of DIRECTV Group, Inc. and EchoStar LLC for Expedited Rulemaking to Amend 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xi) and 1.2106(a) and/or for Interim Conditional Waiver; Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, published at 80 FR 56754, September 18, 2015, in GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket Nos. 14-170, 05-0211, and FCC 15-80. This Public Notice is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 3.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28554 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Chapter I [WT Docket No. 08-7; DA 15-1169] WTB Seeks Comment on a Petition for Declaratory Ruling Clarifying the Regulatory Status of Mobile Messaging Services AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a petition for declaratory ruling on the regulatory status of mobile messaging services.

    DATES:

    Comments are due November 20, 2015. Reply Comments are due December 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated above. All filings should refer to WT Docket No. 08-7. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Ball, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-1310, email [email protected] or Pramesh Jobanputra, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-1323, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Bureau's Public Notice, DA No. 15-1169 WT Docket No 08-7, released October 13, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Copies of the Public Notice also may be obtained via ECFS by entering the docket number WT Docket 15-180; DA No. 15-865. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

    By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeks comment on a petition for a declaratory ruling on the regulatory status of mobile messaging services.

    On August 28, 2015, Twilio Inc. filed a petition for an expedited declaratory ruling, asking the Commission “to declare that messaging services are governed by Title II” of the Communications Act. Today's Public Notice seeks comment on the Twilio Petition and seeks to refresh the record in this proceeding in light of marketplace and legal developments since the Commission sought comment in 2008 on a similar petition.

    Twilio describes itself as a “cloud-based developer-platform company” that facilitates “merging cloud computing, web services, and traditional voice and messaging communications.” In its Petition, Twilio asserts that wireless providers engage in a variety of discriminatory and anti-competitive practices that cannot be adequately addressed absent a declaratory ruling classifying messaging services under Title II. Twilio further asserts that, under judicial and Commission precedent, messaging services constitute telecommunications services and commercial mobile radio services and are thus subject to Title II.

    The Commission invites comment on the issues raised in the Twilio Petition and the Commission seeks to refresh the record on the Joint Petition. The Commission invites commenters to offer detailed estimates—numerical estimates if available—of any costs or benefits claimed.

    This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).

    In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Roger Sherman, Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-27899 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 217 Tuesday, November 10, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Performance Review Board Appointments AGENCY:

    Office of Human Resource Management, Departmental Management, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Appointment.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) and Scientific or Professional (ST) Performance Review Boards (PRB) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in the performance appraisal process. USDA has a total of six PRBs: the Secretary's PRB; Departmental Management and Staff Offices PRB; Natural Resources and Environment PRB; Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Rural Development, and Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services PRB; Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Food Safety PRB; and Research, Education, and Economics PRB. The PRBs are comprised of career and noncareer executives and Chairpersons to make recommendations on the performance of executives to the Secretary, including performance ratings and bonuses for SES, SL, and ST employees. The boards meet annually to review and evaluate performance appraisal documents and provide written recommendations to the Secretary for final approval of performance ratings and base salary increases.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives may be appointed by mission areas to the USDA PRBs:

    Office of the Secretary Christenson, Daniel; Wheelock, Leslie. Departmental Management (OAO, OBPA, OCIO, OCFO, OHSEC, OHRM, OJO, OO, and OPPM) and Staff Offices (ASCR, OCE, OC, OCR, OGC, and NA) Alboum, Jonathan; Bender, Stuart; Bice, Donald; Black, David; Bumbary-Langston, Inga; Grahn, David; Holladay, Jon; Jeanquart, Roberta; Johansson, Robert C.; Jones, Carmen; Jones, Diem-Linh; Leonard, Joe; Parham, Gregory L.; Prieto, Jeffrey; Shorter, Malcom; Ware, Joseph A.; Wiggins, Marsha A.; Wilusz, Lisa; Young, Michael. Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) Avalos, Edward. Agricultural Marketing Service Barnes, Rex; Morris, Erin. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Gregoire, Michael; Shea, A. Kevin. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Mitchell, Lawrence W. Food Safety Almanza, Alfred; Ronholm, Brian. Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Scuse, Michael. Foreign Agricultural Service Quick, Bryce. Farm Service Agency Beyerhelm, Christopher. Risk Management Agency Alston, Michael. Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Wilson, Kathryn. Food and Nutrition Service Dean, Telora; Jackson, Yvette. Rural Development Salerno, Lillian. Rural Business Service Parker, Chadwick O. Rural Housing Service Glendenning, Roger; Hernandez, Tony; Primrose, Edna. Rural Utilities Service Adams, Keith. Natural Resources and Environment Blazer, Arthur; Bonnie, Robert. Forest Service Blount, Emilee; Mills, Ann; Rodriguez-Franco, Carlos. Natural Resources Conservation Service Berns-Melhus, Kim; Norman-Barry, Gayle. Research, Education and Economics Bartuska, Ann. Agricultural Research Service Jacobs-Young, Chavonda. Economic Research Service Bohman, Mary; Pompelli, Gregory K. National Agricultural Statistics Service Hamer, Jr., Hubert; Picanso, Renee; Reilly, Joseph. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Broussard, Meryl; Ramaswamy, Sonny. DATES:

    Effective November 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roberta Jeanquart, Director, Office of Human Resources Management, telephone: (202) 260-8718, email: [email protected] Patricia Moore, Director, Executive Resources Management Division, telephone: (202) 720-8629, email: [email protected]

    (Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).) Dated: November 3, 2015. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28417 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0083] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Select Agent Registration AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for select agent registration.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0083.

    • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0083, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0083 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations for select agent registration, contact Mr. Charles L. Divan, Operations Director, Agriculture Select Agent Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 2, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300, option 3. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Select Agent Registration.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0213.

    Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Act) provides for the regulation of certain biological agents and toxins by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under section 212 of the Act, USDA regulates certain biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to animal and plant health or to animal and plant products. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act within USDA. Select agents and toxins that have been determined to pose a severe threat to both human health and to animal health or animal products are subject to regulation by both APHIS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HHS. CDC has the primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act within HHS.

    APHIS regulations for select agents and toxins are contained in 7 CFR part 331 (plant) and 9 CFR part 121 (animal and overlap 1 ). They require an individual or entity (unless specifically exempted under the regulations) to register with APHIS or with CDC in order to possess, use, or transfer biological agents or toxins.

    1 Overlap select agents and toxins are those that have been determined to pose a severe threat to human and animal health or animal products.

    The registration process is designed to obtain critical information concerning individuals or entities in possession of select agents or toxins, as well as the specific characteristics of the agents or toxins, including name, strain, and genetic information. These data are needed, in part, to allow APHIS to determine the biosafety and biocontainment level of an entity as well as the entity's security situation. This, in turn, helps APHIS to ensure that appropriate safeguard, containment, and disposal requirements commensurate with the risk of the agent or toxin are present at the entity, thus preventing access to such agents and toxins for use in domestic or international terrorism. APHIS will also request information to determine that individuals seeking to register have a lawful purpose to possess, use, or transfer agents or toxins.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this information collection activity for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, such as electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.6 hours per response.

    Respondents: Researchers, universities, research and development organizations, diagnostic laboratories, and other interested parties who possess, use, or transfer select agents or toxins.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 1,517.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 3.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 4,754.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 12,368 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of November 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28597 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 4, 2015.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by December 10, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    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.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Measurement Service Records.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0260.

    Summary of Collection: This collection of information is authorized by 7 CFR part 718 and described in FSA Handbook 2-CP. If a producer requests measurement services, it becomes necessary for the producer to provide certain information which is collected on the FSA-409, Measurement Service or 409 A, Measurement Service Request Register. The collection of this information is necessary to fulfill the producer's request for measurement services. Producers may request acreage or production measurement services.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will collect the following information that the producer is required to provide on the FSA-409 and FSA 409 A: farm serial number, program year, farm location, contact person, and type of service request (acreage or production). The collected information is used to create a record of measurement service requests and cost to the producer.

    Description of Respondents: Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 135,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Weekly; Monthly.

    Total Burden Hours: 168,750.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) Grants to States.

    OMB Control Number 0560-0284.

    Summary of Collection: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is administering the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This information collection is needed for FSA to identify eligible States for blender pump funding to encourage increased ethanol use. FSA requires each State interested in a grant to submit an application to FSA on a form specified by FSA. States will be required to report on the funding distribution, which may require third party reporting depending how the States distribute the funds. FSA announced the availability of competitive grants to fund States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC with respect to activities designed to expand the infrastructure for renewable fuels. The goal is for grantees to provide funds on a one-to-one basis to receive matching CCC funds. The funding will be provided under the authority in section 5(e) of USDA's CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(e)).

    Need and Use of the Information: The applicant will provide the following information in an objective work plan.to show logical connections between the different project elements: Project title, goal, year, objectives, problem statement, results expected, benefits expected, criteria for results and benefits expected, activities, position performing the activity, and time period. The information is used by FSA to determine whether participants meet the eligibility requirements to be a recipient of grant funds. BIP participants will provide to FSA a mid-year report that includes information on services provided during the preceding six months, and an annual report to FSA that includes the goals and accomplishments of the program, program activities and outcomes, and financial status report. Lack of adequate information to make the determination could result in the improper administration and appropriation of Federal grant funds.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 36.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 540.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28540 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 4, 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 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: Evaluation of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) Pilots.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program provides assistance to unemployed and underemployed clients in the form of job search, job skills training, education (basic, post-secondary, vocational), work experience or training and workfare. The Agriculture Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79, Section 4022), authorized grants for up to 10 pilot sites to develop and rigorously test innovative SNAP E&T strategies for engaging more SNAP work registrants in employment, increasing participants' earnings and reducing reliance on public assistance.

    Need and Use of the Information: An evaluation of the pilot sites will be critical in helping Congress and FNS identify strategies that effectively assist SNAP participants to succeed in the labor market and become self-sufficient. The data collected for this evaluation will be used for implementation, impact, participant and cost-benefit analyses for each pilot site.

    Description of Respondents: Individual/Households; Business or other for-Profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 54,820.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 41,765.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28539 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    November 23, 2015, 1 p.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on November 23, 2015, starting at 1 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board will discuss investigations and operational activities through the end of the calendar year and will also provide an update on CSB audits conducted by the EPA Inspector General. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: 1-888-862-6557, confirmation number 41154160.

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    Contact Person for Further Information:

    Amy McCormick, Board Affairs Specialist, [email protected] or (202) 261-7630. Further information about this public meeting can be found on the CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Kara Wenzel, Acting General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28711 Filed 11-6-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission business meeting.

    DATES:

    Date and Time: Wednesday, November 18, 2015; 10 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Place: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

    I. Approval of Agenda II. Program Planning • Status on pending Commission reports • Presentation discussion and vote on timeline and on town hall plan for 2016 Statutory Enforcement Report on Environmental Justice • Discussion and vote on approval of letter to Solicitor General regarding Fisher v. Univ. of Texas • Discussion and vote on approval of public statement on Fisher v. Univ. of Texas • Discussion about December 11th event at the Lincoln Cottage ceremony commemorating the passage of the 13th Amendment • Discussion of next steps regarding Texas' denial of birth certificates to US citizen children of undocumented immigrants • Discussion and vote on part B findings and recommendations for Peaceful Coexistence report • Discussion and vote on approval of letter to Attorney General Lynch regarding prosecutions of Chinese Americans for spying and espionage. III. Management and Operations • Report by SAC Chair for Kansas • Introduction of General Counsel Maureen Rudolph • Staff Director Report IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments • Maryland • West Virginia • Interim appointments to Missouri SAC • Interim appointment to Kentucky SAC • Appointment of Wisconsin SAC Chair V. Adjourn Meeting Dated: November 6, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28715 Filed 11-6-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Committee will advise the Directors of the Economics and Statistics Administration's (ESA) two statistical agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. Last minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments.

    DATES:

    December 11, 2015. The meeting will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-4069, email: [email protected] For TTY callers, please call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 and give them the above listed number you would like to call. This service is free and confidential.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the FESAC are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee advises the Directors of the BEA, the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's BLS, on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2).

    The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Designated Federal Official named above. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Tuesday, December 1, 2015. You may access the online registration form with the following link: https://www.regonline.com/fesac_december2015_meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Designated Federal Official as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28557 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-71-2015] Notification of Proposed Production Activity ASA Electronics, LLC Subzone 125D (Motor Vehicle Audio-Visual Products) Elkhart, Indiana

    The St. Joseph County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 125, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of ASA Electronics, LLC (ASA), operator of Subzone 125D, for ASA's facility located in Elkhart, Indiana. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 21, 2015.

    ASA already has authority to produce motor vehicle radio/cassette players, radio/compact disc players, compact disc players, speakers, video observation systems, TV/video cassette recorder/digital video disk entertainment systems, and flip down video screens within Subzone 125D. The current request would add new finished products and foreign-status materials and components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt ASA from customs duty payments on the foreign status materials and components used in export production. On its domestic sales, ASA would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Microphones; audio speakers; amplifiers; digital video disk (DVD) players; observation cameras; radios; liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors; television antennas; radar/navigation antennas; power control systems; camera switchers; public address systems; insulated coaxial cables; and, wire harnesses (duty rate ranges from free to 5.3%) for the foreign-status inputs noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: plastic bags/packaging; foam packaging; plastic radio housings/TV cabinets/speaker grills; rubber gaskets; paper insert packaging/retail box packaging/manuals; steel bolts/screws; zinc camera housings; metal brackets/sleeves; camera receivers-wireless; microphones; audio speakers/amplifiers; subwoofer speakers; speaker grills; DVD players; memory cards-SD; wireless transmitters; observation cameras; radios; rear view mirror monitors; LCD monitors; TV antennas; radar/navigation antennas; printed circuit boards; TV tuners; fuses; power filters; bulkhead coaxial camera connectors; power control systems; camera switchers; diodes and light emitting diodes; public address systems; insulated coaxial cables; and, wire harnesses (duty rate ranges from free to 5.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 21, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28669 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-72-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 57—Charlotte, North Carolina, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, DNP Imagingcomm America Corporation, Subzone 57C, (Dye Sublimation Transfer Ribbon (STR) and STR Photo Printer Packages), Concord, North Carolina

    The Charlotte Regional Partnership, Inc., grantee of FTZ 57, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of DNP Imagingcomm America Corporation (DNP), operator of Subzone 57C, located in Concord, North Carolina. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 27, 2015.

    DNP already has authority to slit foreign jumbo rolls of thermal transfer ribbons (TTR) and STR and to assemble STR photo printer components (including photo printer packages—printer cartridges and paper) within Subzone 57C. The current request would add certain foreign-status materials and components to the scope of authority. DNP's new activity would involve manufacturing ink and coating polyethylene terephalate (PET) film to produce finished STR jumbo rolls. The finished STR jumbo rolls would then be slit and combined with other components to make photo cartridges that will be assembled with foreign photo paper to make photo printer packages. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt DNP from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, DNP would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to the photo printer packages (duty-free) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Talc hydrated magnesium silica; silicone dioxide; polyisocyanate prepolymer; dihydroxy bis ammonium lactate-titanium (IV) 2 propanal water; zinc stearyl phosphate; isocyanate resin; 2-H benzotriazol-2YL 4.6-bis 1 methyl 1 phenylethyl phenol; substituted heterocyclic compound; paraffin and hydrocarbon waxes; ethylcarbamate derivative; indophenol derivative; solvent dye (blue, violet, yellow, red); pyrazolone derivative; 2.2-(1.2-ethenediyldi-4.1-phenylene) bisbenzoxazole; acrylic copolymer solution; epoxypropoxy propyl; black dye; hydros colloidal alumina; polyaniline-sulfonic acid; vinyl acetal polymers; acrylic resin for coating; polyvinyl butyral; polyester resin; acrylate resin; ethylene glycol monobutyl ether; copolyester; synthetic resin; polyurethane resin; methyl silsesquioxane; plastic tape/labels/film/cores/flanges/spindles/caps; empty cartridges; smart cards (radio frequency identification devices); 4.5 micron polyethylene terephalate film; and photo paper (duty rates range from free to 6.5%). The request indicates that any foreign-status inputs (including PET film) subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order will be admitted to the zone in domestic (duty-paid) status (19 CFR Sec. 146.43).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 21, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28646 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-876] Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) to correct a ministerial error. The period of investigation is October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Goldberger or Ross Belliveau, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4952, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 13, 2015, the Department published the final determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of welded line pipe from Korea.1 Also on October 13, 2015, the Department received a timely allegation from Hyundai Steel Company 2 (HYSCO) that the Department made ministerial errors in applying the conversion cost adjustment, the toll processing cost adjustment, and the revisions to the date of sale for HYSCO.3 On October 14, 2015, the Department received a timely allegation from the petitioners 4 that the Department made a ministerial error in the application of the general and administrative (G&A) and the financial expense ratios for HYSCO.5 On October 15, 2015, the Department received comments from Maverick Tube Corporation (Maverick) on HYSCO's ministerial error allegation.6 On October 19, 2015, the Department received comments from HYSCO on the petitioners' ministerial error allegation.7

    1See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61366 (October 13, 2015) (Final Determination).

    2 On July 1, 2015 Hyundai HYSCO merged into Hyundai Steel Company.

    3See Letter from HYSCO, “Welded Line Pipe from Korea: Ministerial Error Allegation,” dated October 13, 2015 (HYSCO Ministerial Error Allegation).

    4 The petitioners include American Cast Iron Pipe Company; Energex Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group; Northwest Pipe Company; Stupp Corporation, a division of Stupp Bros., Inc.; Tex-Tube Company; TMK IPSCO; and Welspun Tubular LLC USA (collectively, the petitioners).

    5See Letter from the petitioners, “Line Pipe from Korea: Ministerial Error Allegation” dated October 14, 2015.

    6See Letter from Maverick, “Welded Line Pipe from South Korea: Response to HYSCO's Ministerial Error Allegations” October 15, 2015.

    7See Letter from HYSCO, “Welded Line Pipe from Korea: Response to Petitioners' Ministerial Error Allegation,” dated October 19, 2015.

    Based on our analysis of the allegations submitted by HYSCO and the petitioners, we determined that, with respect to the conversion cost adjustment and the toll processing cost adjustment, we did not make ministerial errors, as defined by section 735(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.224(f).8 However, we determined that we did make ministerial errors within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) with respect to the revisions to date of sale and the application of the G&A and financial expense ratios.9 We revised the margin calculation for HYSCO accordingly, and assigned a new All Others rate, as discussed below.10

    8See Memorandum entitled “Allegations of Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    9Id.

    10Id.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation appears in Appendix I of the Final Determination.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 735(e) of 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 allegations and determined, in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors with respect to the revisions to date of sale and the application of the G&A and financial expense ratios. In implementing the date of sale methodology to use the earlier of invoice date or shipment date, we inadvertently failed to update HYSCO's reported date of sale variable to account for invoice and shipment date revisions. Therefore, we corrected this error. In addition, we revised HYSCO's calculation of the G&A and financial expense ratios cost of goods sold denominator to reflect the major input rule and transactions disregarded rule adjustments, in order to keep the calculation of the ratios on the same basis as the cost of manufacturing to which they are applied.11 Therefore, we are amending the final determination with respect to HYSCO, in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).12

    11 We note that the correction of this error did not change HYSCO's G&A and financial expense ratios from those in the Final Determination.

    12 The weighted-average dumping margin for SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) in the Final Determination has not changed. It remains at 2.53 percent.

    Amended Final Determination

    As a result of correcting these ministerial errors, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Hyundai HYSCO 6.23 SeAH Steel Corporation 2.53 All Others 4.38
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of this amended final determination, as provided by section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for HYSCO will be the rate we determined in this amended final determination (i.e., 6.23 percent); (2) the cash deposit rate for SeAH will continue to be that identified in the Final Determination (i.e., 2.53 percent); (3) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 4.38 percent, as indicated above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    U.S. International Trade Commission

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the Final Determination and our amended final determination. As the Final Determination was affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days of the Final Determination whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    This amended final determination notice is published in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28667 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-984] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 6, 2012, through December 31, 2013. On May 7, 2015, we published the preliminary results of this administrative review.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. After reviewing the comments received, we have made no changes to the Preliminary Results. As such, we continue to find that Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We also find that Shunde Native Produce Import and Export Co., Ltd. of Guangdong (Native Produce) did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.

    1See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part, and Intent to Rescind the Review in Part; 2012-2013, 80 FR 26226 (May 7, 2015) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778.

    Scope of the Order

    Drawn stainless steel sinks are sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of sinks. The products covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided as Appendix I to this Notice.

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs submitted by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each program found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.2

    2See sections 771(5)(B)and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because we determine that the Government of the PRC did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we applied an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.3 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    3See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination of No Shipments and Rescission of the Review in Part

    Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by Native Produce, we determine that Native Produce did not have any reviewable entries during the POR. No evidence of shipments was placed on the record, therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the administrative review of this company. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of the Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for for 2012 and 2013, respectively, as set forth below.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • 2013
  • Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • 2012
  • Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd 9.83 3.91
    Assessment Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP fifteen days after the date of publication of these final results. The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for the periods on or after August 6, 2012 through December 3, 2012, and on or after April 10, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For entries made during the gap period 4 (i.e, on or after December 4, 2012 through April 9, 2013), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entries without regard to countervailing duties pursuant to section 703(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    4 The gap period represents the period of time after the expiration of the 120-day provisional measures period during the investigation, to the day prior to the publication in the Federal Register of the U.S. International Trade Commission's Final Determination. In this administrative review, the gap period is December 4, 2012, to April 9, 2013.

    For the rescinded company, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period on or after August 6, 2012, through December 3, 2012, and on or after April 10, 2013, through December 31, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Dongyuan, as determined for 2013, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I— List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary A. Background B. Scope of the Order C. Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review D. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences E. Subsidy Valuation Information F. Analysis of Programs G. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Dongyuan's Stainless Steel Supplier is an Authority Comment 2: The Department's Refusal to Meet With Counsel for Dongyuan Comment 3: The Department's Refusal to Permit the GOC to Submit Factual Information After the Preliminary Results Comment 4: Whether the Stainless Steel Coil Industry in China is Distorted by Government Presence in the Market Comment 5: Whether Working Capital Loans are a Part of the Policy Lending Program H. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-28664 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-968] Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Pursuant to Court Decision AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 23, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) results of redetermination pursuant to court remand, which recalculated the all-others subsidy rate in the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (the PRC),1 pursuant to the CIT's MacLean-Fogg Remand Order. 2 Consistent with the clarification in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision in Diamond Sawblades, 3 we are amending the Final Determination.

    1See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521 (April 4, 2011) and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 74466 (December 14, 2012) (collectively, Final Determination).

    2See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00209, Slip Op. 15-85 (CIT August 2015) (MacLean-Fogg Remand Order).

    3See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Determination, the Department assigned a total adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 374.14 percent to the three non-cooperating mandatory respondents and calculated company-specific net subsidy rates for two participating voluntary respondents. The Department averaged the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and applied that rate as the all-others rate, calculated pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act).4

    4See Final Determination, 76 FR at 18523, and accompanying Issues and Decision at Comment 9.

    In MacLean-Fogg I, the CIT held that the statute was ambiguous concerning whether the Department is required to base the all-others rate on rates calculated for mandatory respondents and therefore the Department was permitted to use the mandatory respondents' rates in calculating the all-others rate provided it did so in a reasonable manner.5 Nonetheless, the CIT remanded the all-others rate to the Department for reconsideration because the Department failed to articulate a connection between the mandatory respondent rates, based on AFA, and the all-others companies.6

    5See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1373-1374 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg I).

    6Id., at 1376.

    In MacLean-Fogg II, the CIT held that the Department's preliminary all-others rate in the Preliminary Determination7 was also subject to review under the same reasonableness standard because it had legal effect on the entries made during the interim time period between the issuance of the preliminary and final CVD rates, both as a cash deposit rate and, if an annual review was sought, as a cap on the final rate for those particular entries.8 Thus, in MacLean-Fogg II, the Court held that it would consider the reasonableness of the preliminary rate when it reviewed the Department's remand determination.9

    7See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 (September 7, 2010) (Preliminary Determination).

    8See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (CIT 2012) (MacLean-Fogg II).

    9Id.

    In MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT considered the Department's remand results.10 On remand, the Department did not recalculate the all-others rate, but rather, provided data indicating that the rate calculated for the mandatory respondents was logically connected to the all-others companies because the mandatory respondents comprised a significant portion of the PRC extruded aluminum producers and exporters, and thus were representative of the PRC extruded aluminum industry as a whole.11 The CIT held that “nothing in the statute requires that the mandatory respondents' rates, even when based on AFA, may only be used to develop rates for uncooperative respondents.” 12 However, in MacLean-Fogg III, the CIT also concluded that the Department failed to explain how the calculated all-others rate was remedial and not punitive when it assumed use of all subsidy programs identified in the investigation.13 Therefore, the CIT remanded again to the Department for re-consideration of the issue.14

    10See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1338 (2012) (MacLean-Fogg III).

    11Id.

    12Id., at 1341.

    13Id., at 1342-1343.

    14Id., at 1343.

    In the second results of redetermination pursuant to remand issued in this litigation, the Department designated the all-others rate as equal to the preliminary rate it calculated for the mandatory respondents, i.e., 137.65 percent.15 In MacLean-Fogg IV, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand results, holding that the Department's selection of this all-others rate was reasonable.16

    15See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated September 13, 2012, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands.

    16See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2012) (MacLean Fogg IV) at 11-12.

    The CIT's holdings were appealed to the CAFC. On June 3, 2014, the CAFC held that section 351.204(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, which directs the Department to exclude voluntary respondents' rates from its calculation of the all-others rate, was inconsistent with the statute.17 Accordingly, the CAFC held that the Department must include rates calculated for voluntary respondents in determining an all-others rate.18 As the Department had not used the rates calculated for the voluntary respondents in the underlying investigation to determine the all-others rate, the CAFC therefore held that the Department was required to recalculate the all-others rate using the voluntary respondents' rates. The CIT subsequently remanded the issue to the Department for reconsideration in light of the CAFC's holding.19

    17See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States (CAFC), 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

    18Id., at 1245.

    19See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 32 F. Supp. 3d 1358 (CIT 2014) (MacLean-Fogg V).

    On remand, the Department recalculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the voluntary respondents' rates.20 Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that, in general, the all-others rate “shall be an amount equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated . . . .” However, the Department explained in the Third Remand Results that the use of a weighted average would have revealed the proprietary information of the voluntary respondents to each other.21

    20See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated March 17, 2015 (Third Remand Results) at 6, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands.

    21Id.

    Petitioners 22 argued that the Department should have requested publicly ranged versions of proprietary data on the record from the voluntary respondents to use in its calculation of the all-others rate, but in the Third Remand Results, the Department instead calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the rates of the two voluntary respondents, which resulted in a rate of 7.42 percent.23

    22 Petitioners are the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee.

    23See Third Remand Result.

    After considering the Third Remand Results, the CIT remanded to the Department the all-others rate calculation, explaining that the “statute unequivocally and without exception requires that the Department base the all-others rate on the weighted average of individually-investigated non-zero, non-de minimis, non-AFA rates.” 24 Furthermore, the CIT emphasized that 19 CFR 351.304(c)(1) requires all proprietary information “to be accompanied by public versions `in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information.' ” 25 The CIT thus directed the Department on remand to either request the publicly ranged data from the voluntary respondents, or publicly range the companies' information itself, and reconsider its determination to use a simple average of their subsidy rates.26

    24See MacLean-Fogg Remand Order, at 21.

    25Id., at 30.

    26Id., at 31.

    The Department requested and received from the voluntary respondents (i.e., Guang Ya Companies and Zhongya Companies) their publicly ranged sales value and volume data for exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the 2009 investigation period. Using that data, the Department calculated a weighted-average all-others subsidy rate of 7.37 percent.27 In accordance with the MacLean-Fogg Remand Order, the Department reconsidered its decision to rely on the simple average of the voluntary respondents' rates in determining the all-others rate.28 Specifically, because the subsidy rate determined based on the publicly ranged data, rather than the subsidy rate determined based on a simple average, is closer to the subsidy rate that would have resulted from weighting the voluntary respondents' rates based on proprietary sales values, the Department revised the all-others rate to 7.37 percent in its Final Remand Results. 29

    27See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated October 15, 2015 (Final Remand Results), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands.

    28Id.

    29Id.

    On October 23, 2015, in MacLean Fogg Remand Order, the CIT affirmed the Department's Final Remand Results, upholding that the Department's all-others rate of 7.37 percent.30

    30See MacLean Fogg Co., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 15-119, Court No. 11-00209 (October 23, 2015).

    Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Final Determination, the Department amends its Final Determination. The following revised net subsidy rate exists:

    Company Subsidy rate All-Others 7.37 percent ad valorem.

    For companies subject to the all-others rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above and the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection accordingly. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and consistent with the clarification in Diamond Sawblades.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28668 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.1 This review covers two producers/exporters of subject merchandise: ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) and Deacero S.A. de C.V. We preliminarily determine that AMLT and Deacero made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire Rod Order).

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra (for Deacero) or Jolanta Lawska (for AMLT), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3965 and 202-482-8362, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the Wire Rod Order is carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6050, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, 7227.90.6080, and 7227.90.6085 of the HTSUS. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.2

    2 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 2013/14 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with these preliminary results.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export prices or export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Deacero S.A. de C.V 72.95 ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V 12.38
    Assessment Rate

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).3 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent). Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review where applicable.

    3 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was 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(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Deacero and AMLT will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.4 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 67 FR 55800 (August 30, 2002).

    Concerning Deacero, on October 1, 2012, the Department found that wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm produced (hereinafter referred to as narrow gauge wire rod) in Mexico and exported to the United States by Deacero was circumventing the Wire Rod Order. 5 Specifically, the Department found that it is appropriate to consider that Deacero's shipments to the United States of narrow gauge wire rod constitute merchandise altered in form or appearance in such minor respects that it should be included within the scope of Wire Rod Order. 6 The Department's affirmative finding in the Final Circumvention Determination applied solely to Deacero.

    5See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Order, 77 FR 59892 (October 1, 2012) (Final Circumvention Determination) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    6Id.

    Deacero challenged the Department's ruling in the Final Circumvention Determination and on December 22, 2014, the Court of International Trade (CIT) entered its final judgement in Deacero III, 7 sustaining the Department's negative circumvention determination from the First Remand Redetermination in which the Department, under protest, found that Deacero's shipments of narrow gauge wire rod to the United States were not subject antidumping duties.8 The Department is appealing the CIT's decision at the Federal Circuit. Consistent with the CIT's holding and Wire Rod Timken Notice, 9 the Department instructed CBP to set the cash deposit rate for narrow gauge wire rod shipped to the United States by Deacero to zero, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Additionally, we instructed CBP to refund any antidumping duties deposited for narrow gauge wire rod shipped to the United States by Deacero that entered from January 1, 2015, through the publication date of the Wire Rod Timken Notice (July 27, 2015) and, for such entries, to continue to suspend Deacero's narrow gauge wire rod at a zero cash deposit rate.10

    7See Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and Deacero Usa, Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345, Slip Op. 14-151 (Deacero III).

    8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345; Slip Op. 13-126 (CIT 2013) (January 29, 2014) (First Remand Redetermination).

    9See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Determination, 80 FR 44326, 44327 (July 27, 2015) (Wire Rod Timken Notice).

    10Id.

    During the POR of the instant review, Deacero shipped narrow gauge wire rod as well as wire rod with actual diameters greater than 5.00 mm. In light of the CIT's holding in Deacero III and our statement in Wire Rod Timken Notice that Deacero's narrow gauge wire rod is excluded from antidumping duties,11 we have, for purposes of these preliminary results, removed narrow gauge wire rod from Deacero's dumping calculations. Per the Court's holding in Deacero III, the preliminary cash deposit rate for Deacero, as listed above, only applies with regard its entries of wire with an actual diameter that is greater than 5.00 and less than or equal to 19.00 mm. The cash deposit rate listed above for Deacero does not apply to its entries of narrow gauge wire rod.

    11See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.13 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.14 All case and rebuttal briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS, and must also be served on interested parties.15 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    12See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    14See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    15See 19 CFR 351.303(f).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.16 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    16See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Unless the deadline is extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.

    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of Methodology A. Universe of Sales B. Date of Sale C. Comparisons to Normal Value D. Product Comparisons E. Determination of Comparison Method F. Results of DP Analysis G. U.S. Price H. Normal Value I. Cost of Production Analysis J. Affiliated Respondents K. Currency Conversion V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-28623 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-024] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Affirmative Less Than Fair Value Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Bezirganian, Office VI, 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) 482-1131.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 15, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary affirmative less than fair value determination on certain polyethylene terephthalate resin from the People's Republic of China.1 The Preliminary Determination contained inadvertent errors in the chart containing the weighted-average margins. Specifically, certain exporter names were matched with the incorrect producer names. The chart below contains the correct combinations of names:

    1See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 62024 (October 15, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. or Oriental Industries (Suzhou) Limited Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. or Oriental Industries (Suzhou) Limited 125.12 Jiangyin Xingyu New Material Co., Ltd. or Jiangsu Xingye Plastic Co., Ltd. or Jiangyin Xingjia Plastic Co., Ltd. or Jiangyin Xingtai New Material Co., Ltd. or Jiangsu Xingye Polytech Co., Ltd Jiangyin Xingyu New Material Co., Ltd. or Jiangsu Xingye Plastic Co., Ltd. or Jiangyin Xingjia Plastic Co., Ltd. or Jiangyin Xingtai New Material Co., Ltd. or Jiangsu Xingye Polytech Co., Ltd 131.16 Dragon Special Resin (XIAMEN) Co., Ltd Dragon Special Resin (XIAMEN) Co., Ltd 129.42 Hainan Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd Hainan Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd 129.42 Shanghai Hengyi Polyester Fiber Co., Ltd Shanghai Hengyi Polyester Fiber Co., Ltd 129.42 Zhejiang Wankai New Materials Co., Ltd Zhejiang Wankai New Materials Co., Ltd 129.42 PRC-Wide Entity 145.94

    This correction to the Preliminary Determination is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28665 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-983] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on drawn stainless steel sinks (drawn sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 The review covers seven producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, including the following mandatory respondents: Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) and Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd. (Yingao). The period of review (POR) is October 4, 2012, through March 31, 2014. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. After reviewing the comments received and making corrections to the margin calculations, where appropriate, we continue to find that Dongyuan and Yingao both made sales of subject merchandise to the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. The final dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

    1See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 80 FR 26227 (May 7, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian C. Smith or Reza Karamloo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 and (202) 482-4470, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    For a description of events that have occurred since the publication of the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum 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.

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.3

    3 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain revisions to the margin calculations for Dongyuan, Yingao, and the separate rate respondents.4

    4 For further explanation regarding these changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Separate Rate Respondents

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that the mandatory respondents, Dongyuan and Yingao, and the following separate rate applicant companies satisfied the criteria for separate rate status: Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd.; Guangdong New Shichu Import & Export Company Limited; Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd.; Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Development Corporation Limited; and Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.5 We received no comments or arguments since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provide a basis for reconsideration of our decision with respect to these companies. Therefore, the Department continues to find that the companies listed above meet the criteria for a separate rate.

    5See Preliminary Results, 80 FR 26228; see also Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China” (April 30, 2015) (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), at 6-9.

    Rate for Non-Examined Separate Rate Respondents

    In the Preliminary Results, we assigned an average of the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Dongyuan and Yingao to the non-individually examined companies that are eligible for a separate rate (i.e., the separate rate applicant companies). No parties commented on the methodology for calculating this separate rate. Therefore, in these final results of the review, we continue to use an average of the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Dongyuan and Yingao,6 which is 4.29 percent, as the rate for those companies which were not examined and which are eligible for a separate rate. The separate rate applicant companies receiving this rate are identified by name and listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

    6See Memorandum to the File from Brian Smith, Team Leader, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Calculation of the Final Margin for Separate Rate Companies,” dated concurrently with this memorandum (Final Results Separate Rate Calculation Memorandum).

    Final Results of the Review

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Feidong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Shunde Native Produce Import & Export Co, Ltd. of Guangdong; and Zhongshan Silk Import & Export Group Co., Ltd. of Guangdong were not eligible for a separate rate, and therefore, were part of the PRC-wide entity.7 Because the status of these companies has not changed since the Preliminary Results, we continue to find that they are ineligible for a separate rate and part of the PRC-wide entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,8 we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the rate for the PRC-wide entity is not subject to change as a result of this review.

    7See Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 10-12.

    8See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    For companies subject to this review, which established their eligibility for a separate rate, the Department finds that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 4, 2012, through March 31, 2014:

    Exporters Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin 9
  • (percent)
  • Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd 4.29 Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd 2.82 Guangdong New Shichu Import & Export Company Limited 4.29 Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd 8.06 Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd 4.29 Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Development Corporation Limited 4.29 Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd 4.29
    Assessment Rates

    9 These rates have been adjusted for the estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

    For each individually examined respondent in this review (i.e., Dongyuan and Yingao) which has a weighted-average dumping margin which is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific per-unit duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's (or customer's) examined sales to the total sales quantity associated with those sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).10 Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-(or customer-) specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    10 In these final results, the Department continues to apply the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    For the respondents which were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review and which qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate is equal to the average of the weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Dongyuan and Yingao, or 4.29 percent.

    For the companies identified above as part of the PRC-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 76.45 11 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by those companies.

    11 The PRC-wide rate determined in the investigation was 76.53 percent. See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592, 21594 (April 11, 2013). This rate was adjusted for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass through to determine the cash deposit rate (76.45 percent) collected for companies in the PRC-wide entity. See explanation in Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Investigation, Final Determination, 78 FR 13019, 13025 (February 26, 2013).

    The Department has refined its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.12

    12 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (NME Antidumping Proceedings).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, which is 76.45 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed for these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Margin Calculations V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1. Eligibility of Respondents for a “Double Remedy” Pass-Through Adjustment Comment 2. Subsidy Rates Used as the Basis for the “Double Remedy” Pass-Through Adjustment Comment 3. Use of Bloomberg Data Comment 4. Statutory Authority To Consider an Alternative Comparison Method Comment 5. Notice and Comment Process Necessary for New Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 6. Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 7. Zeroing Comment 8. Definition of Purchaser and Region in the Cohen's d Test Comment 9. Surrogate Financial Ratios Comment 10. Stainless Steel Surrogate Value Comment 11. Treatment of Labor Expenses in the Financial Ratios and Adjustment To Labor Surrogate Value Comment 12. Calculation of the Labor Surrogate Value Comment 13. Truck Freight Surrogate Value Comment 14. Inclusion of Letter of Credit Costs in the Brokerage and Handling Surrogate Value Comment 15. Weight Adjustment Made to the Brokerage and Handling and Truck Surrogate Values Comment 16. Wooden Box Factor Calculation for Yingao Comment 17. Packing Material Consumption Weights for Yingao Comment 18. Dongyuan Reported Gross Weights Comment 19. Separate Rate Eligibility for Feidong VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-28644 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0047] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection, and to revise an existing information collection, titled, “Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) 12 CFR 1003.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before January 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this mailbox.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: “Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) 12 CFR 1003”.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0008.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of an existing collection.

    Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 145.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 690,000.1

    1 This represents the burden under the renewal of the existing rules which will increase to 1,388,880 once all provisions of the new final rule become effective.

    Abstract: The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) requires certain depository institutions and for-profit nondepository institutions to collect, report, and disclose data about originations and purchases of mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that do not result in originations (for example, applications that are denied or withdrawn). The Bureau's Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, implements HMDA. The purpose of the information collection is: (i) To help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities; (ii) to assist public officials in distributing public-sector investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it is needed; and (iii) to assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes. The information collection will also assist the CFPB's examiners, and examiners of other federal supervisory agencies, in determining that the financial institutions they supervise comply with applicable provisions of HMDA.

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(f) and 1320.11(h), this information collection request (ICR) is being submitted to OMB in association with the final rule for Regulation C (RIN 3170-AA10), 80 FR 66127 published October 27, 2015. Further, since the information collection requirements as contained in current Regulation C are currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2016 and the information collection requirements as contained in the final rule for Regulation C will generally not become effective until January 1, 2018, this ICR is also contemporaneously being submitted to OMB under 5 CFR 1320.12, Clearance of collections of information in current rules. The Bureau is requesting OMB to extend for an additional three years its approval of the information collection requirements as contained in current Regulation C.

    Request for Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Linda F. Powell, Chief Data Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28602 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Closed Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group. This meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, December 2, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, December 3, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dougherty Conference Center, Building 432, 906 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christy Fetzer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, (402) 294-4102, 901 SAC Boulevard, Suite 1F7, Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6030.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App 2, section 1), the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice on scientific, technical, intelligence, and policy-related issues to the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, during the development of the Nation's strategic war plans.

    Agenda: Topics include: Policy Issues, Space Operations, Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Assessment, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Intelligence Operations, Cyber Operations, Global Strike, Command and Control, Science and Technology, Missile Defense.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. Per delegated authority by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral C.D. Haney, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, in consultation with his legal advisor, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Strategic Advisory Group at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Strategic Advisory Group's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28506 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary National Commission on the Future of the Army; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The DoD is publishing this notice to announce two days of meetings of the National Commission on the Future of the Army (“the Commission”). The meetings will be partially closed to the public.

    DATES:

    Date of the Closed Meetings: Wednesday, November 18, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, November 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    Date of the Open Meeting: Thursday, November 19, 2015, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address of Closed Meetings, November 18 and 19, 2015: Rm 12110, 5th Floor, Zachary Taylor Building, 2530 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Address of Open Meeting, November 19, 2015: Polk Conference Room, Room 12158, James Polk Building, 2521 S. Clark St., Arlington, VA 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Don Tison, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Future of the Army, 700 Army Pentagon, Room 3E406, Washington, DC 20310-0700, Email: [email protected]. Desk (703) 692-9099. Facsimile (703) 697-8242.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the National Commission on the Future of the Army was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of November 18-19, 2015, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    This meeting will be held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of Meetings: During the closed meeting on Wednesday, November 18, 2015, the Commission will receive results from the Comprehensive Analytical Review and begin the discussion on the rationale for proposals using the Comprehensive Analytical Review results.

    During the closed meeting on Thursday, November 19, 2015, the Commission will continue the discussion on the rationale for proposals using the Comprehensive Analytical Review's results from the November 18 closed meeting and establish the framework for subcommittee proposals. During the open meeting on Thursday, November 19, 2015, the Commission will hear subcommittee interim reports and the public will have an opportunity to provide remarks.

    Agendas: November 18, 2015—Closed Meeting: The Commission will hold a closed meeting to receive results of the Comprehensive Analytical Review followed by a discussion on the rationale for proposals using the results of the Comprehensive Analytical Review. Speakers include analysts from Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), Center for Army Analysis, RAND Corporation and the Commission Staff. All presentations and resulting discussion are classified.

    November 19, 2015—Closed Meeting: The Commission will continue the discussion on the rationale for subcommittee proposals using the Comprehensive Analytical Review results, additionally the Commission and subcommittee staff leads will establish the framework work for presenting subcommittee proposals to the Commission. All presentations and resulting discussion are classified.

    November 19, 2015—Open Meeting: The Commission will receive interim reports from representatives from the various subcommittees and time will be allotted for public comments.

    Meeting Accessibility: In accordance with applicable law, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that portion of the meetings scheduled for November 18, 2015, and the morning of November 19, 2015, will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Assistant Deputy Chief Management Officer, with the coordination of the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that these portions of the meetings will be closed to the public because it will discuss matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 52b(c)(1).

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, the meeting scheduled for November 19, 2015 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.at the James Polk Building is open to the public. Seating is limited and pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Media representatives are also encouraged to register. Members of the media must comply with the rules of photography and video filming in the James Polk Building. The closest public parking facility is located in the basement and along the streets. Visitors will be required to present one form of photograph identification. Visitors to the James Polk Office Building will be screened by a magnetometer, and all items that are permitted inside the building will be screened by an x-ray device. Visitors should keep their belongings with them at all times. The following items are strictly prohibited in the James Polk Office Building: Any pointed object, e.g., knitting needles and letter openers (pens and pencils are permitted.); any bag larger than 18″ wide x 14″ high x 8.5″ deep; electric stun guns, martial arts weapons or devices; guns, replica guns, ammunition and fireworks; knives of any size; mace and pepper spray; razors and box cutters.

    Written Comments: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the stated agenda of the open and/or closed meeting or the Commission's mission. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) will review all submitted written statements. Written comments should be submitted to Mr. Donald Tison, DFO, via facsimile or electronic mail, the preferred modes of submission. Each page of the comment must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. All comments received before Wednesday, November 18, 2015, will be provided to the Commission before the November 19, 2015 meeting. Comments received after Wednesday, November 18, 2015, will be provided to the Commission before its next meeting. All contact information may be found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Oral Comments: In addition to written statements, ten minutes will be reserved for individuals or interest groups to address the Commission on November 19, 2015. Those interested in presenting oral comments to the Commission must summarize their oral statement in writing and submit with their registration. The Commission's staff will assign time to oral commenters at the meeting; no more than five minutes each for individuals. While requests to make an oral presentation to the Commission will be honored on a first come, first served basis; other opportunities for oral comments will be provided at future meetings.

    Registration: Individuals and entities who wish to attend the public meeting on Thursday, November 19, 2015 are encouraged to register for the event with the DFO using the electronic mail and facsimile contact information found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The communication should include the registrant's full name, title, affiliation or employer, email address, day time phone number. This information will assist the Commission in contacting individuals should it decide to do so at a later date. If applicable, include written comments and a request to speak during the oral comment session. (Oral comment requests must be accompanied by a summary of your presentation.) Registrations and written comments should be typed.

    Additional Information: The DoD sponsor for the Commission is the Deputy Chief Management Officer. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2016 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the Army will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28543 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0123] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 10, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: National Language Service Corps; DD Forms 2932, 2933, and 2934; OMB Control Number 0704-0449.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement with change.

    Number of Respondents: 1,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Annual Responses: 4,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 16.24 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,218.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to identify individuals with language and special skills who potentially qualify for employment or service opportunities in the public section during periods of national need or emergency.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28551 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0107] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Grantee Reporting Form—RSA Annual Payback Report AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0107. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rose Ann Ashby, (202) 245-7258.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Grantee Reporting Form—RSA Annual Payback Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1820-0617.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 350.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 400.

    Abstract: Under section 302 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) provides Long-Term Training grants to academic institutions to support scholarship assistance to students. Students who receive scholarships under this program are required to work within the public rehabilitation program, such as with a state vocational rehabilitation agency, or an agency or organization that has a service arrangement with a state vocational rehabilitation agency. The student is expected to work two years in such settings for every year of full-time scholarship support. The program regulations at 34 CFR 386.33-386.35 and 386.40-386.43 detail the payback provisions and the RSA scholars' requirements to comply with them.

    Section 302 (b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the academic institutions (i.e., grantees) that administer Long-Term Training grants to track the employment status and location of former scholars supported under their grants in order to ensure that students are meeting the payback requirement. Program regulations at 34 CFR 386.34 require each grantee to establish and maintain a tracking system on current and former RSA scholars for this purpose and to report to the Secretary information on the scholars' progress toward fulfilling their obligation towards payback in qualified employment in fields which include clinical practice, administration, supervision, teaching or research in vocational rehabilitation, supported employment, or independent living rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with significant disabilities.

    The Annual Payback Report form for which RSA is requesting an extension collects data on the status of “current” and “exited” RSA scholars who are/were the recipients of scholarships. In addition to meeting the requirement that all scholars be tracked, the information collected on the form currently in use will continue to provide performance data relevant to the rehabilitation fields and degrees pursued by RSA scholars, as well as the funds owed and the rehabilitation work completed by them.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28564 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0106] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0106. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Marsha Silverberg, 202-2018-7178.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0912.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,835.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 885.

    Abstract: The Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound will test the effectiveness of providing Upward Bound projects with a professional development package and tools to provide semi-customized college advising to students participating in Upward Bound. Upward Bound projects were invited to volunteer for the demonstration, and approximately 200 projects that volunteered for the demonstration are included. Volunteer projects will be randomly assigned so that half receive the staff training, materials, tools, and resources in the first wave (spring 2015), and the other half will receive the staff training, materials, tools, and resources in the second wave (summer and fall 2016). The study will follow students who participate in both groups of projects as 11th graders in the 2014-2015 school year. The study will examine the impact of the demonstration on key outcomes including college application behavior, college acceptance and matriculation, and receipt of financial aid. The first of two ICRs for the study requested approval for the overall evaluation design, to collect 11th grade student rosters at each participating project and to administer the student baseline survey; the first ICR was approved on 8/8/2014. This is the second of two ICRs and requests approval for the remaining data collection activities, including a project survey, a follow-up student survey, and administrative records. Three reports will be produced, with one (expected 2017) reporting on the outcomes measures prior to high school graduation; a second (expected 2018) reporting on the results regarding actual college enrollment, college selectivity and use of Federal financial aid; and a third (expected 2020) reporting results regarding college persistence. The analyses will be both descriptive (distributions and means) and causal (using standard regression analyses to estimate impacts).

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28563 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-154-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—Chesapeake 911268 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20151030-5499.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-155-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Nextera 510828 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-156-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreements—11/01/2015 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-157-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: BUG Ramapo release to L&L Energy for 11-1-2015 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-158-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: ConEd Ramapo releases 2 for 11-1-2015 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-159-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: KeySpan Ramapo release to Alpha for 11-1-2015 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-160-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (BP 37-21) to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-161-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Plymouth Rock 790838 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-162-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Case Settlement Amendments to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-163-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—BP Energy 790839 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-164-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2—Cargill, Incorporated SP315848 to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5261.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1252-001.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Negotiated Rate & Non-Conforming ESE—SWN Energy Compliance to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1253-001.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Negotiated Rate & Non Conforming ESE SJ Resources Compliance.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-137-001.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to RP16-137 to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20151102-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/12/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28523 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9936-92-OA] Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel as part of the peer review of the EPA draft report, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, (May, 2015 External Review Draft, EPA/600/R-15/047). The teleconference will serve to complete agenda items from the October 28-30, 2015 Panel meeting, namely to develop preliminary key points in response to charge questions on the agency's draft assessment.

    DATES:

    The public teleconference will be held on Thursday, December 3, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this public teleconference may contact Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer, by telephone: (202) 564-2134 or email at [email protected] The SAB mailing address is: U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. General information about the SAB, including information concerning the SAB meeting and teleconferences announced in this notice, may be found on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Technical Contact for EPA's Draft Report: Any technical questions concerning EPA's draft report should be directed to Dr. Jeffrey Frithsen, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 8601P, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (703) 347-8623 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel will hold a public teleconference as part of the peer review of the EPA draft report, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, (May, 2015 External Review Draft,EPA/600/R-15/047).

    The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has developed a draft assessment report concerning the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water in the United States. The purpose of the report, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, (May, 2015 External Review Draft, EPA/600/R-15/047), is to synthesize available scientific literature and data to assess the potential for hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas to impact the quality or quantity of drinking water resources, and identify factors affecting the frequency or severity of any potential impacts. As noticed in 80 FR 32111-32113, the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel held a face-to-face meeting on October 28-30, 2015, to conduct a peer review of the agency's draft report.

    The purpose of the December 3, 2015, public teleconference is for the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel to complete agenda items from the October 28-30, 2015 Panel meeting, namely to develop preliminary key points in response to charge questions on the agency's draft assessment.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: Additional background on this SAB activity, the teleconference agenda, and other materials for the teleconference will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/f7a9db9abbac015785257e540052dd54!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,hydraulic,fracturing in advance of the teleconference.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Throughout the Panel review process, there will be opportunities for the public to provide comments. For example, the public was invited to provide comments to the Docket on the draft EPA report and will have an opportunity to provide comments to the Docket on the SAB Panel's draft report, provide oral statements to the Panel during the Panel teleconferences and meeting, and provide comments in preparation for quality review of the SAB Panel's draft report by the Chartered SAB. Members of the public wishing to provide written comments may submit them to the EPA Docket electronically via www.regulations.gov, by email, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the written statements section of this notice. Members of the public wishing to provide oral statements to the SAB Panel should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting to present an oral statement at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker. To be placed on the public speaker list for the December 3, 2015 teleconference, interested parties should notify Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, by email no later than November 25, 2015.

    Written Statements: Written statements for the December 3, 2015, teleconference should be received in the EPA Docket by November 25, 2015, so that the information may be made available to the SAB Panel sufficiently in advance of the teleconference for the Panel's consideration.

    Written statements should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0245 and submitted to the Docket at www.regulations.gov by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]: Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 28221T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0245, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is (202) 566-1752.

    Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Fax: (202) 566-9744.

    Public comments submitted after November 25, 2015 will be marked late, and should be submitted to the Docket by email, mail, hand delivery or fax (see detailed instructions above). Consistent with SAB Staff Office general practice, comments received after November 25, 2015 will be made available to the SAB Panel as soon as practicable. It is EPA's policy to include all comments received in the public docket without change and to make the comments available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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 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 comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the SAB Panel may not be able to consider your comments. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

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

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28663 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0668; FRL-9936-78-OW] Notice of Opportunity To Provide Information on Existing Programs That Protect Water Quality From Forest Road Discharges AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) solicits public input and information on existing public and private sector programs that address stormwater discharges from forest roads. This information will assist EPA in responding to the remand in Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 344 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) that requires EPA to consider whether the Clean Water Act requires the Agency to regulate forest roads. This notice does not imply that EPA has made any decision to do so. EPA is considering the implementation, effectiveness, and scope of existing programs in addressing water quality impacts attributable to stormwater discharges from forest roads prior to making any decision. The Agency plans to assess a variety of existing programs, including federal, state, local, tribal, third party certifications, and combinations of these approaches, as well as voluntary best management practices (BMP)-based approaches. In preparing its response to the remand, EPA is coordinating with other federal agencies, and will assess whether any additional stormwater controls are called for, consistent with federal law, including the recent 2014 amendments to the Clean Water Act.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0668, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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:

    Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management via email at [email protected] or telephone at 202-564-0021.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information Applicability

    This notice does not impose requirements on any entity.

    II. Background A. Purpose

    EPA is gathering information on existing programs addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads to determine what additional measures, if any, are necessary to protect water quality. As described below, section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) allows EPA to consider a range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, and determine which stormwater discharges (if any) need controls under 402(p)(6). Since EPA's last public notice on May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30473), in which the Agency also solicited comments on approaches for addressing water quality impacts associated with forest roads, a number of developments have occurred, including statutory and regulatory changes, collection of additional water quality data, results from new research, new information pertaining to effectiveness of BMPs, and updates to federal, state, local, tribal, and other programs. Therefore, the Agency seeks to obtain public input and updated information on the implementation, effectiveness, and scope of approaches and programs that are currently in place for addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads.

    B. Legal Background

    The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To that end, the CWA provides that the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful, except in compliance with other provisions of the statute. The CWA provides for a permit program, in general, for the discharge of a pollutant from a “point source,” which is defined in section 502 of the CWA as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). In 1987 Congress added section 402(p) to the CWA, which required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for certain specified stormwater discharges and provided EPA with discretion to determine whether and how discharges from other stormwater sources should be addressed “to protect water quality.”

    For the initial phase of stormwater regulation, section 402(p)(1) created a temporary moratorium on NPDES permits for point sources except for those listed in section 402(p)(2), which includes discharges already required to have a permit; discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems serving population of 100,000 or more; and stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity.” Congress did not define discharges associated with industrial activity, allowing EPA to define the term. For other stormwater discharges, section 402(p)(5) directs EPA to conduct studies, in consultation with the states, for “identifying those stormwater discharges or classes of stormwater discharges for which permits are not required”; “determining to the maximum extent practicable, the nature and extent of pollutants in such discharges”; and “establishing procedures and methods to control stormwater discharges to the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality.” Section 402(p)(6) directs the Agency to issue regulations, in consultation with state and local officials, based on such studies. The section allows EPA flexibility in issuing regulations to address designated stormwater discharges and does not require the use of NPDES permits. Specifically, the section states that the regulations “shall establish priorities, establish requirements for state stormwater management programs, and establish expeditious deadlines” and may include “performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management practices and treatment requirements, as appropriate.” 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). This flexibility is unique to stormwater discharges regulated under section 402(p)(6) and differs from the requirement for NPDES permits for stormwater discharges listed in section 402(p)(2) of the Act.

    Prior to the 1987 Amendments, there were numerous questions regarding the appropriate means of regulating stormwater discharges through the NPDES program. These questions stemmed from serious water quality impacts of stormwater, the variable nature of stormwater, the large number of stormwater discharges, and the limited resources of permitting agencies. EPA undertook several regulatory actions, which resulted in extensive litigation, in an attempt to address these unique discharges.

    EPA's Silvicultural Rule (40 CFR 122.27) predates the 1987 amendments to the CWA that added section 402(p) for stormwater controls. The Agency defined silvicultural point source as part of the Silvicultural Rule to specify which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program. The rule defines silvicultural point source to mean any “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance related to rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities which are operated in connection with silvicultural activities and from which pollutants are discharged into waters of the United States,” and further explains that “the term does not include non-point source silvicultural activities such as nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff.”

    In 1990, EPA promulgated the Phase I stormwater regulations (55 FR 47990) (“Phase I Rule”), following the 1987 amendments which directed the Agency to develop regulations requiring permits for large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems and stormwater “discharges associated with industrial activity.” In the Phase I regulations EPA defined the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity,” which is not defined by the Act but was discussed in the legislative history to the 1987 amendments. In describing the scope of the term “associated with industrial activity,” several members of Congress explained in the legislative history that the term would apply if a discharge was “directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” (Vol. 132 Cong. Rec. H10932, H10936 (daily ed. October 15, 1986); Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. H176 (daily ed. January 8, 1987)). The Phase I Rule provided the regulatory definition of “associated with industrial activity” by adopting the language used in the legislative history and supplementing it with a description of various types of areas (for example, material handling sites, sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment, etc.) that are directly related to an industrial process and to industrial facilities identified by EPA. The Phase I regulations define the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” to include stormwater discharges from facilities identified in the rule by Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) codes. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The Phase I Rule does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program under other parts of EPA's regulations, including the Silvicultural regulations. Id. As discussed above, EPA had previously specified under the Silvicultural regulations which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program. 40 CFR 122.27. EPA intended to regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities) and to exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater runoff from other silvicultural activities, consistent with the requirements of section 122.27.

    In developing the second phase of stormwater regulations, EPA submitted to Congress in March 1995 a report that evaluated the nature of stormwater discharges from municipal and industrial facilities that were not already regulated under the Phase I regulations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Storm Water Discharges Potentially Addressed by Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Program: Report to Congress. Washington, DC EPA, 1995. (833-K-94-002)). On December 8, 1999, EPA promulgated the Phase II stormwater regulations to address stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems and construction sites that disturb one to five acres. 64 FR 68722. Under CWA sections 402(p)(2)(E) and 402(p)(6), EPA retains the authority to designate additional stormwater discharges for regulation.

    The Phase II stormwater regulations were challenged in Environmental Defense Center v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) (EDC v. EPA). In that case, petitioners contended that EPA arbitrarily failed to regulate discharges from forest roads under the Phase II rule. The court held that EPA failed to consider the petitioners' comments and remanded the issue to EPA “so that it may consider in an appropriate proceeding Petitioner's contention that section 402(p)(6) requires the EPA to regulate forest roads. The EPA may then either accept Petitioners' arguments in whole or in part, or reject them on the basis of valid reasons that are adequately set forth to permit judicial review.” Id. at 863.

    During several years following the decision in EDC v. EPA, EPA undertook research to improve the Agency's knowledge of forest road stormwater discharge impacts on water quality and what programs exist, whether voluntary or mandatory, to reduce those impacts. During the same period, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center initiated litigation concerning logging road stormwater discharges.

    In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (“NEDC”), a citizen suit alleging violations of the CWA for unpermitted discharges of stormwater from ditches alongside two logging roads in state forests. The court held that because the stormwater runoff from the two roads in question is collected by a system of ditches, culverts and channels and then discharged into waters of the United States, there was a point source discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity for which an NPDES permit is required.

    On May 23, 2012, EPA published a Notice in the Federal Register summarizing known water quality impacts related to forest roads and discussing existing state, tribal, and voluntary programs designed to address those impacts. (77 FR 30473). The Notice expressed EPA's intent to specify that only stormwater discharges associated with rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage are considered discharges associated with industrial activities, and that those would be the only discharges associated with silvicultural activity that would be subject to permitting under the stormwater regulations pertaining to industrial activity. The Notice also discussed the Agency's consideration of non-permitting approaches to address other stormwater discharges from forest roads.

    On December 7, 2012, EPA promulgated a final rule (77 FR 72970) to specify that for the purposes of assessing whether stormwater discharges are “associated with industrial activity,” the only facilities under the SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” are: Rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. This rulemaking clarified that, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's decision in NEDC, discharges of stormwater from silviculture activities other than the four specifically named activities identified above do not require an NPDES permit. On March 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling in NEDC, holding that discharges of stormwater that ran off logging roads into ditches, culverts and channels did not require an NPDES permit. Decker, Oregon State Forester, et al. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 133 S.Ct 1326 (2013).

    In 2014, Congress amended section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to effectively prohibit the use of NPDES permits for the discharge of runoff “resulting from the conduct of the following silviculture activities conducted in accordance with standard industry practice: nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance.” 33 U.S.C. 1342(l). In addition, the amendment prohibits third party lawsuits authorized by section 505(a) for any non-permitting program established under 402(p)(6), or for any other limitations applied to silviculture activities.

    In December 2014, EDC and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit to compel EPA to respond, within six months, to the question remanded in the 2003 EDC v. EPA decision of whether section 402(p)(6) requires regulation of stormwater discharges from forest roads. Following execution of a settlement agreement that was filed with the court on August 26, 2015, the court entered an order establishing a schedule requiring EPA to issue a final determination by May 26, 2016.

    III. Water Quality Impacts From Stormwater Discharges From Forest Roads

    The Agency's May 23, 2012 Notice summarized the research EPA had collected to date on the water quality impacts resulting from stormwater discharges from forest roads. Much of this research was compiled in the 2008 report “National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices” prepared by the Great Lakes Environmental Center, Inc. (GLEC). This document is available in the docket for today's notice and provides an extensive discussion on water quality impacts from forest road stormwater discharges, which are primarily erosion and sedimentation, but can also include changes in stream morphology, introduction of chemicals and other pollutants, and degradation of aquatic habitat.

    EPA's research indicates that improperly designed, constructed, maintained, or decommissioned forest roads, as well as abandoned “legacy roads,” 1 can lead to a number of impacts. These impacts can include increased sediment load and changes in stream network hydrology, subsequently causing physical, biological, and ecological impacts to water quality. EPA also recognizes that not all forest roads cause water quality impacts and that within a basin the majority of the water quality impacts caused by discharges from forest roads may be attributed to a relatively small subset of forest roads (see, for example, Nelson et al., 2011; Fly et al., 2010; Luce and Black, 2001; Luce and Black, 1999).

    1 Abandoned or “legacy roads” refers to forest roads built prior to the establishment of current design standards, which are not being used but may still be sources of sediment.

    The focus of this notice is to solicit input on the implementation and effectiveness of existing public and private programs, whether voluntary or legally binding and enforceable, in mitigating water quality impacts from stormwater discharges from forest roads, rather than to receive additional comments or materials on water quality impacts of these discharges. Specifically, EPA seeks input on the implementation, effectiveness, and scope of existing federal, state, local, tribal and private sector programs. The Agency also seeks input on additional approaches and regulations, if necessary, to mitigate negative impacts on water quality from forest road stormwater discharges.

    IV. EPA's May 23, 2012 Federal Register Notice

    On May 23, 2012, EPA published a Notice that sought comment on potential approaches for addressing water quality impacts resulting from stormwater discharges from forest roads. In response to that Notice, EPA received over 100 comment letters. Some comments pointed to existing programs suggesting that a national regulation addressing discharges from forest roads is unnecessary because existing state and tribal programs are sufficient. Others asserted that existing federal, state, and tribal programs are insufficient to protect water quality.

    As discussed above, EPA is prohibited from requiring NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads associated with defined “silvicultural activities” as a result of the 2014 amendment to section 402(l) of the CWA. However, authority to regulate these discharges in other ways and using other methods remains, including under section 402(p)(6). As noted, section 402(p)(6) of the CWA allows EPA flexibility in issuing regulations to address designated stormwater discharges and does not require the use of NPDES permits. Specifically, the section states that the regulations shall establish priorities, establish requirements for state stormwater management programs, and establish expeditious deadlines and may include “performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management practices and treatment requirements, as appropriate.” 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6).

    In assessing whether regulation is required under section 402(p)(6) of the CWA, EPA is considering the effectiveness of existing programs in addressing water quality impacts attributable to stormwater discharges from forest roads, including federal, state, local, tribal, third-party certifications, and combinations of these approaches, as well as voluntary BMP-based approaches. In this notice, EPA requests information on these and other means currently in place for addressing the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads or certain portions of forest roads. EPA also requests information on implementation and lessons learned from experience with existing programs.

    V. Key Considerations

    In assessing how best to manage stormwater discharges from forest roads, EPA recognizes that any effective program should be informed by several considerations. It is EPA's view that there are four key considerations for managing stormwater discharges as described later in this notice: (1) The advantage of leveraging existing strategies that work, including existing effective federal, state, local, tribal, private, and voluntary BMP-based programs; (2) the utility of addressing site-specific factors; (3) the need to prioritize actions; and (4) the benefits of accountability measures.

    Forest road stormwater management programs vary across the country in response to state or regional factors. EPA is working with federal agencies, states, and tribes as well as the private sector to understand their programs for managing stormwater discharges from forest roads. The Agency is interested in engaging other interested stakeholders in the process as well. EPA provided an overview of existing public and private programs to manage stormwater discharges from forest roads in its May 23, 2012 Federal Register Notice, but understands that there may have been improvements and additions since that time. With this Notice, EPA seeks updated information on existing programs.

    A range of guidelines are available to assist forest owners, managers, and operators in designing and maintaining forest roads and selecting the appropriate BMPs to control stormwater discharges. For example, EPA has issued national guidance to assist forest owners and operators to protect lakes and streams from polluted runoff that can result from forestry activity and, in particular, from improperly built or maintained forest roads (USEPA, 2005). Other federal agencies as well as states have also developed guidance documents to protect water quality from forest road discharges (For example USFS (2012) and Georgia Forestry Commission (2009)). In addition, industry has developed standards for voluntary certification programs (For example, NCASI (2012) and SFI (2015)). BMP-based approaches allow forest road owners and operators to tailor management practices to site-specific factors such as topography, road design, soils, geologic factors, road use, and climate. The diversity of the forest road networks, the different classes of roads, the different local physical conditions, and the broad range of road conditions and uses indicate the importance of site-specific BMP selection and implementation to protect water quality.

    EPA also intends to consider the complexity and vastness of the Nation's forest road network and diversity of the forested landscape. EPA seeks additional information that would assist the Agency in evaluating various approaches, including, for example: Differences among forest uses; particularly vulnerable features of the road network (for example, stream crossings); critical phases (for example, road closure or decommissioning); ownerships of different forest tracts; types of ownership, including public, private, and tribal-owned lands; and forest road conditions, type, and usage. The selection of appropriate management strategies and BMPs can vary based on site-specific factors, including topography, road design, soils, geologic factors, road use, road maintenance schedule, and climate. EPA also would like information on the effectiveness of properly implemented BMPs in protecting water quality from forest road stormwater discharges. EPA solicits information on what approaches have been or could be applied nationally regardless of forest road type and ownership, as well as which approaches might be best targeted to specific locations. For instance, performance-based management strategies may be more effective and less burdensome than approaches that rely upon prescriptive solutions.

    EPA recognizes the importance of prioritization in allocating resources. For example, protecting beneficial uses such as fish spawning or public water supply may be a high priority in some areas while reducing impacts to waters listed as impaired or included in an existing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) might be a high priority in other areas. EPA requests information on how existing programs identify and determine where to allocate resources to prioritize high quality, or pristine, waters or alternatively, impaired waters, or how to prioritize focus on certain forest roads that may be more problematic than others.

    Finally, accountability is a key element of a successful approach ensuring stormwater discharges from forest roads are properly implemented and managed across the country and that reasonable progress is made in addressing inadequately managed stormwater discharges from forest roads. EPA seeks information regarding existing programs, such as adaptive management approaches, that include accountability measures such as monitoring, reporting, necessary updates, and consequences for failure to adhere to the objectives of the management program.

    VI. Approaches for Managing Stormwater Discharges From Forest Roads

    As described in further detail below, many owners and operators of forest lands are employing a variety of effective approaches to manage, operate, comply with and maintain forest roads to control stormwater discharges. Depending on the jurisdiction, owners or operators use federal requirements, BMP state program requirements, as well as tribal requirements, or follow the standards of voluntary programs, including forest stewardship and sustainability initiatives. Some of these approaches are used in combinations that may provide a more holistic approach, which may be more protective and effective.

    A. Examples of Existing State and Tribal Programs

    Many states and some tribes have programs in place that function to prevent or minimize forest road stormwater discharge impacts on water quality. These programs generally establish standards for the design of forest roads and BMPs. State and tribal programs vary in their substantive level of protection, specificity and enforceability, and generally fall into three categories: regulatory, non-regulatory, and combination programs. Information available to EPA indicates that 15 states have established mandatory BMPs for forest roads and the remaining 35 states allow for voluntary implementation of BMPs to control stormwater discharges from forest roads (GLEC, 2008). In some cases the failure to implement voluntary measures can result in enforcement where noncompliance leads to a significant risk to water quality. For example, the California program resembles a permit program and is mandatory, whereas Florida relies primarily on voluntary compliance with state-approved road BMPs. The discussion below describes two existing state programs and briefly describes several existing tribal programs to illustrate the different approaches used to address forest road impacts.

    Maine provides an example of a state that employs a non-regulatory forest management program. In a voluntary program, the state typically develops state-wide forestry BMPs (including measures for forest roads) and recommends that the forest owners implement the BMPs. Generally, there are no permit mechanisms or enforcement actions, but many states with voluntary programs use a hands-on approach that emphasizes education, outreach, and training for forest owners, loggers, and others (Maine DEC, 2012).

    Maine's forestry BMP program is administered through the Maine Forest Service (MFS). Broadly, the program consists of voluntary BMPs implemented by the landowner, monitoring of the BMPs by MFS, and, if needed, a regulatory “safety net.” The primary focus of the MFS program is training and outreach. MFS works to develop and revise BMPs, the most recent set being published in 2004. MFS then offers frequent training courses across the state and online to promote understanding of the principles and techniques in selecting and installing appropriate BMPs. Deficiencies in the implementation of BMPs (as identified by follow-up monitoring or other mechanisms) may lead to specialized training sessions (Maine DEC, 2012).

    The MFS also conducts field monitoring of forestry BMPs. In collaboration with other stakeholders, a state-wide monitoring protocol was developed and has been implemented annually at selected sites since 2006. As noted in GLEC (2008), surveys have shown that BMPs are, for the most part, being consistently implemented and installation rates have improved substantially over time. When the need for improvements in BMP application are identified, MFS works cooperatively with the landowner to address the issue (Maine DEC, 2012).

    Maine has a number of state laws that address sediment discharges to surface waters, including discharges due to timber operations. As needed, MFS works with other state agencies to identify problems and address them in a regulatory manner. Most issues are resolved cooperatively before a regulatory solution is needed (Maine DEC, 2012).

    North Carolina has a combination approach for its forest management program, as it employs elements of both regulatory and non-regulatory programs. In 1990, the state developed administrative rules (Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality (FPGs)). Additionally, other state laws or interagency agreements can apply to forestry activities, including the location, construction, and maintenance of forest roads in wetlands (North Carolina FS, 2012).

    The North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS) conducts thousands of forestry compliance inspections each year and has found high FPG compliance rates on a statewide basis. More focused implementation-specific monitoring has been conducted several times since 2000 by the NCFS and has also shown high implementation rates for forest road BMPs, despite their voluntary nature. State staff also provide technical assistance in designing and implementing BMPs and in assessing water quality. North Carolina revised its BMP manual in 2006 and included detailed discussions about all aspects of managing forest roads. The state has implemented a number of training and education programs in concert with demonstration projects to promote proper BMP usage. North Carolina agencies also coordinate to ensure that forestry operations are compliant with state requirements, that inspections are properly conducted, and that enforcement protocols are appropriately established (North Carolina FS, 2012).

    Across the country, over 300 tribal reservations are significantly forested, and tribal lands include 17.9 million acres of forest land, including 7.7 million acres of productive timberland (ITC 2007). Tribal governments in partnership with the U.S. government dedicate substantial resources to improving tribal forest management. Much of the responsibility for managing forests on tribal lands across the country is carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with the involvement of tribal governments. The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA), Title III, Public Law 101- 630, directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the affected tribes, to obtain an independent assessment of the status of forest resources on tribal lands and their management.

    NIFRMA requires the development of forestry management plans under which the forests are managed in accordance with BMPs, as approved through an interdisciplinary team consisting of forestry experts from academia, the private sector, forest-managing tribes and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The Tribal Forest Protection Act (Pub. L. 108-278) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement or contract with tribes to carry out projects to protect forests on tribal lands. Protection of such land is particularly important for tribes because they pass their land on from generation to generation. This helps to ensure future availability of natural resources, including healthy forests and clean water.

    Many tribes have taken on significant roles in sustainable forest management. For example, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin manages the forested portions of the reservation for long-term sustainability through the Menominee Tribal Enterprises (MTE), which has received certifications for sustainable management from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-approved programs conducted by the Scientific Certification and the Rainforest Alliance. According the MTE Millwork Web site,2 certification is awarded to forest operations that are well managed in accordance with environmentally and socially responsible guidelines. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe requires that all new roads be obliterated and seeded after forest harvesting activities. Similarly, the Blackfeet Nation has a no net new road miles policy, which requires the closure of an existing road before a new forest road may be constructed.

    2http://www.mtemillwork.com/.

    EPA requests comments regarding the implementation, effectiveness and scope of state, local, and tribal programs, both mandatory and voluntary, in preventing or minimizing forest road environmental impacts on water quality. EPA also seeks feedback on which elements are regarded as necessary for an effective program (for example, an inventory of forest roads; logger training and outreach; technical assistance; requirements for best management practices for forest roads; guidelines for prioritizing and addressing water quality concerns related to stormwater discharges from existing forest roads; accountability measures; public involvement and the opportunity for public input into the development of the state program; a program for monitoring or auditing to assess program compliance; a program for monitoring the effectiveness of the roads program in minimizing water quality impacts; and an adaptive management process to revise BMPs based on effectiveness monitoring) and how much flexibility is appropriate for state and tribal programs.

    B. Examples of Existing Federal Programs

    Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), have established programs for the management of stormwater discharges from forest roads on federal lands. These agencies manage large tracts of forested lands, including lands that are actively being disturbed by road building, road maintenance, logging operations, unauthorized public and recreational use or other tasks, and have generally demonstrated sound environmental stewardship in managing these lands.

    FS has developed a number of programs related to managing discharges from forest roads to improve water quality. For example, FS is revising its Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook directives (FSM 2500 3 and FSH 2509-19 4 ) on BMPs for water quality protection on National Forest Service lands. These revisions would establish national BMPs and associated monitoring protocols on National Forest Service lands. 70 FR 25824. As part of this effort, FS has developed a National Core BMP Technical Guide 5 intended to improve FS performance and accountability in managing water quality consistent with the CWA and State water quality programs. This Guide establishes national core BMPs that address 11 subject areas affecting water quality, including “Road Management Activities.” The Road Management Activities BMP provisions address: Travel Management Planning and Analysis; Road Location and Design; Road Construction and Reconstruction; Road Operations and Maintenance; Temporary Roads; Road Storage and Decommissioning; Stream Crossings; Snow Removal and Storage; Parking and Staging Areas; Equipment Refueling and Servicing; and Road Storm Damage Surveys. Each BMP draws on administrative directives that guide FS management of roads on NFS land. FS directives and BMP Guide allow for the use of state, tribal and local requirements and information to develop site-specific BMPs. They also provide monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness using national core BMP monitoring protocols and reporting systems. Based on monitoring results, these mechanisms provide for adaptive management in assessing implementation, effectiveness, and adjusting practices as needed to protect water quality. FS has enhanced its Road Preconstruction Handbook on Design (FSH 7709.59 Chapter 40) as well as the Transportation Structures Handbook on Hydraulics and Watershed Protection (FSH 7709.59b CH 60) to include design considerations for the construction and reconstruction of forest roads which minimize road and drainage impacts to the watershed. FS Technology and Development Centers have created a number of publications to assist designers when addressing road/water interactions http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/.

    3 Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2530—Water Resource Management, 2532—Water Quality Management.

    4 National Best Management Practices, Chapter 10—National Core Best Management Practices.

    5 National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-990a, April 2012.

    FS has also created the Watershed Condition Framework, an approach to assessing watersheds in national forests and grasslands, implementing protective measures and providing for ongoing monitoring.6 FS has developed another program, known as the Legacy Roads and Trails Program, to identify legacy roads in national forests and grasslands, and to minimize the discharge of stormwater by decommissioning or upgrading them.7 FS also publishes documents for specific regions or types of forests that contain information on forest road construction and maintenance, as well as information on appropriate BMPs.8

    6http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/Watershed_Condition_Framework.pdf.

    7http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/Legacy_Roads_and_Trails/.

    8 See, for example, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362512.pdf and http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5399662.pdf.

    FS has also developed a suite of tools for the identification and prioritization of road segments at risk for contributing to water quality problems.9 These tools operate at scales of detail ranging from using corporate road databases and digital elevation data to using detailed GPS surveys. These tools have been applied in watershed sediment load reduction plans for waters listed as impaired under the CWA 10 and in forest restoration projects under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program in the states of Idaho, Montana,11 and California. FS maintains an applied science program on road-related sediment risks to support all of the above efforts (see, for example, Luce et al., 2001; Switalski et al., 2004).

    9 See, for example, http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/.

    10 See, for example, http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/id_bear.cfm.

    11 See, for example, http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/downloads/case_studies/WatershedStudies_LoloHelenaFlatheadNFs_SWCC_2014%20Final%20Report.pdf.

    BLM is a significant owner and manager of forests and woodlands on federal lands as well, primarily in the western U.S. and Alaska. Similar to FS, a full suite of activities are authorized and managed on BLM forests and woodlands, including timber harvesting, hazardous fuel reduction treatments, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, oil and gas activities, and grazing. Authorized uses in forests and woodlands, such as timber harvesting, often include road construction and maintenance, which are broadly governed by policies, standards, and right of way agreements that ensure proper design and upkeep.12 The BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook, which includes guidance for the development of BLM land use plans developed under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and implementation of other BLM actions, provides broad agency direction for BLM to use BMPs to meet the standards and goals of the CWA, to address various protection measures to mitigate impacts to human health concerns, ecosystem health, riparian areas, and overall watershed conditions, and to meet state and local water quality requirements.13 One recent example on how BLM has incorporated this guidance into the planning process for management of lands that include forest roads can be found in Appendix I of the recently released western Oregon Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix I).14

    12http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/forests_and_woodland.html.

    13http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/planning/planning_general.Par.65225.File.dat/blm_lup_handbook.pdf.

    14http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/deis.php.

    One example of multiple agencies coordinating to implement BMPs in a particular region of forests is the Northwest Forest Plan under the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The recently released “Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring, 20-Year Report, Status and Trend of Watershed Condition” summarizes the results of the 20-year interagency effort to implement an array of protective measures including BMPs to maintain watershed health in that region.15 Finally, BLM has partnered with the Society of America Foresters (SAF) to foster proper forest management techniques on BLM lands nationwide.16

    15http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report.

    16http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/0.Par.97719.File.dat/BLM_MOU_WO-200-2009-03.pdf.

    EPA welcomes comments on the implementation, effectiveness and scope of these federal programs and how they work in coordination with state and tribal programs to assist EPA in developing its response to the 2003 remand in EDC v. EPA, but emphasizes that this is not the forum for evaluating specific elements of FS or BLM programs.

    C. Examples of Third-Party Certification Programs

    In recent years, forestry organizations, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), have developed non-governmental third-party certification programs to address water quality impacts from forest roads. A wide variety of certification programs exist worldwide, but most have common elements such as standards for responsible forest management and harvesting, third-party audits, documentation, and publication. These certification programs address many aspects of forest management, but they specifically include management practices for mitigating water quality impacts resulting from stormwater discharges from forest roads. Also, these programs typically avoid developing a single set of standards and acknowledge necessary regional variation in BMPs.

    Certification programs are, at their core, market- or consumer-driven. Certification is incorporated into a chain-of-custody process that permits a producer of consumer products (for example, paper, lumber, and furniture) to apply a “green” or “eco-friendly” label to those products as recognition of responsible sourcing and to ultimately influence consumer purchasing choices that translate into increased sales. Some producers of end products may only accept raw materials that meet certification program requirements; for example, a paper mill might not accept raw materials that do not have certification. The recent rise in prominence of certification programs coincides with other studies (for example, Ice et al., 2010) showing increases in the implementation rates of BMPs over the same period.

    SFI grew out of a program developed by the American Forest & Paper Association and relies on a system of principles and objectives. A set of BMP-related requirements must be met for forest owners, loggers, and others to attain SFI's certification for forest fiber sourcing. Performance measures focus on adherence to applicable water quality laws and installation of BMPs, with performance criteria that include developing an overall program for certification and compliance, monitoring of BMPs during all phases of forestry activities, mapping of water resources, and recordkeeping. Third-party audits (typically conducted annually) verify the certification process. This program is also already a central element in many of the states' forestry training programs and also includes outreach to landowners and support for various research efforts.

    FSC's program places an emphasis on conservation, as well as social and economic criteria. Similar to SFI, FSC's program relies on a series of overarching principles and more specific performance criteria. One such criterion specifies that forest owners must develop written plans to address erosion and other impacts associated with forest operations. Specific guidelines for forest roads include minimizing erosion, avoiding water crossings, and minimizing habitat fragmentation. FSC offers two types of certification: one for forest managers and another for entities involved in the intermediate and end uses of the wood products.

    Like the state and federal programs, these programs are revised over time. For example, in 2015, SFI revised the standards that guide their certification program; the new standards specifically mention managing water quality impacts resulting from the construction and use of forest roads. Data also suggest that BMP implementation rates are substantially higher in forests that participate in certification programs (Texas Forest Service, 2011).

    EPA requests comments on the implementation, effectiveness and scope of the elements of these third-party certification programs that address runoff from forest roads. EPA also welcomes comments from the organizations administering these programs. In particular, EPA seeks comment on how programs such as these fit with or complement other programs; for example, whether and to what extent these industry or non-governmental programs fill gaps in state and tribal programs.

    VII. Request for Comments and Data

    EPA encourages public comments to inform EPA's upcoming decision as to whether there is a need for additional regulation of stormwater discharges from forest roads. Requests for comment can be found throughout this notice in the sections where they are discussed. This section specifically requests comment on the issues below. To the extent possible, EPA requests that comments provide concrete examples or quantitative data.

    1. For purposes of the discussion in this notice, EPA uses the term “forest road” to mean a road located on forested land, and the term “logging road” to mean a forest road that is used to support logging activities. That is, as used in this notice, logging roads are a subset of forest roads. However, the Agency has not established regulatory definitions of “forest road,” “logging road,” or “forested land” and welcomes comment on whether and how EPA should define these terms. EPA is also interested in the way in which states, tribes, and other federal agencies currently define them. EPA recognizes that some forest roads are built initially to support logging activities but later serve other purposes that may or may not continue to include support for logging activities. EPA requests comment on the way in which states, tribes, and other federal agencies distinguish among such forest roads.

    2. EPA seeks comment on the implementation, effectiveness, and scope of existing federal, state, local, tribal, and other programs in addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads. EPA encourages submittal of specific information (for example, BMP implementation rates, effectiveness of implemented BMPs to protect water quality, pollutant reduction studies, audit results, and examples of adaptive management).

    3. EPA requests comments on what specific elements of a forest road program are most important to ensure it is effective and protective of water quality. For example, forest road programs may include an inventory of forest roads; a requirement for BMPs; a systematic planning process for prioritizing and addressing water quality concerns related to stormwater discharges from existing roads; an accountability measure; an opportunity for public involvement in the development and management of the program; water quality monitoring to assess effectiveness of the program; and/or an adaptive management process to revise BMPs based on effective monitoring.

    4. EPA also invites comments on what additional measures, consistent with federal law, could be implemented in existing programs to increase water quality protection from forest roads stormwater discharges where necessary.

    IX. References

    A list of references cited in this notice is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0668.

    Fly, C., Grover-Wier, K., Thornton, J., Black, T., Luce, C. 2010 Bear Valley Road Inventory (GRAIP) Report In Support of the Bear Valley Category 4b Demonstration. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 54 pp. Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry. May 2009. Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC). 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices: Final Report. December 4, 2008. By Douglas Endicott. Ice, G.G., E. Schilling, and J. Vowell. 2010. Trends for forestry best management practice implementation. Journal of Forestry 108:267-273. Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), 2007. National Overview of Tribal Forestry. Proceedings in Trust and Transition: Perspectives on Native American Forestry. April 30, 2007. University of Washington. Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vo. 35, No. 8 p. 2561-2570. Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Production. V64-V74, Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 25-29 March 2001, Reno, NV. Luce, C. H., B. E. Rieman, J. B. Dunham, J. L. Clayton, J. G. King, and T. A. Black (2001), Incorporating Aquatic Ecology into Decisions on Prioritization of Road Decommissioning, Water Resources Impact, 3(3), 8-14. Maine Department of Conservation (DEC). Comment letter on EPA's May 23, 2012 Notice of Intent. June 19, 2012. By Doug Denico. Document ID EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0170. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). 2012. Assessing the Effectiveness of Contemporary Forest Best Management Practices (BMPs): Focus on Roads. Special Report 12-01. January 2012. By Dr. G.G Ice and Dr. E.B. Schilling. Nelson, N., Cissel, R., Black, T., Luce, C. 2011. Monitoring Road Decommissioning in the Mann Creek Watershed: Post-storm Report Payette National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 33 pp. North Carolina Forest Service (FS). 2012. Comment letter on EPA's May 23, 2012 Notice of Intent. June 21, 2012. By Wib Owen. Document ID EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0100. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). 2015. SFI 2015-2019 Standards and Rules: Standards, Rules for Label Use, Procedures and Guidance. January 2015. Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. DeLuca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej (2004), Benefits and impacts of road removal, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(1), 21-28. Texas Forest Service. 2011. Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas: Results from Round 8 of BMP Implementation Monitoring. December 2011 By H. Simpson, C. Coup, and C. Duncan. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Pollution from Forestry. EPA-841-B-05-001. Washington, DC: USEPA Office of Water. April 2005. United States Forest Service (USFS). 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, United State Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-990a, April 2012. Dated: October 31, 2015. Kenneth J. Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28649 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1178] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 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 11, 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 [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1178.

    Title: TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund Reimbursement Form, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399; Section 73.3700(e), Reimbursement Rules.

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399.

    Type of Review: Revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,900 respondents and 22,800 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-4 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; and Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

    Total Annual Burden: 31,100 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $5,625,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is some need for confidentiality with this collection of information. Invoices, receipts, contracts and other cost documentation submitted along with the form will be kept confidential in order to protect the identification of vendors and the terms of private contracts between parties. Vendor name and Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) will not be disclosed to the public.

    Needs and Uses: The collection is being made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to provide reimbursement to television broadcast stations that are relocated to a new channel following the Federal Communications Commission's Incentive Auction, and to multichannel video programming distributors (MVDPs) that incur costs in carrying the signal of relocated television broadcast stations. Relocated television broadcasters and MVPDs (“eligible entities”) will be reimbursed for their reasonable costs incurred as a result of relocation from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund. Eligible entities will use the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund Reimbursement Form (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399) to submit an estimate of their eligible relocation costs; to submit actual cost documentation (such as receipts and invoices) throughout the construction period, as they incur expenses; and to account for the total expenses incurred at the end of the project.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28553 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Architecture (Task Force) will hold its fifth meeting.

    DATES:

    December 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Timothy May, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-1463, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be held on December 10, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the FCC, Room TW-305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Task Force is a Federal Advisory Committee that studies and will report findings and recommendations on PSAP structure and architecture to determine whether additional consolidation of PSAP infrastructure and architecture improvements would promote greater efficiency of operations, safety of life, and cost containment, while retaining needed integration with local first responder dispatch and support. On December 2, 2014, pursuant to the FACA, the Commission established the Task Force charter for a period of two years, through December 2, 2016. At this meeting, the Task Force will hear presentations and consider a vote on the recommendations and reports of Working Group 1—Cybersecurity: Optimal Approach for PSAPs and Working Group 2—Optimal Approach to NG911 Architecture Implementation by PSAPs.

    Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live.

    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 Consumer & Governmental Affairs at (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation requested. In addition, please include a way the FCC may contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28556 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WT Docket No. 12-354; DA 15-1208] Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on an Appropriate Method for Determining the Protected Contours for Grandfathered 3650-3700 MHz Band Licensees AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on the appropriate methodology for determining the contours for protecting existing 3650-3700 MHz wireless broadband licensees from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users during a fixed transition period.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before December 10, 2015. Reply comments are due on or before December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All filings in response to the notice must refer to WT Docket No. 12-354. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau strongly encourages parties to file comments electronically. Comments may be submitted electronically by the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    By email. To obtain instructions for filing by email, filers should send an email to [email protected], and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Attn: WTB/MD, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. All envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Powell, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-1613 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of public notice (DA 15-1208) released on October 23, 2015. The complete text of the public notice is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 12-354. The complete text of the public notice is also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 15-1208.

    In the notice, the Bureau seeks comment on the appropriate methodology for determining the protected interference contours for existing 3650-3700 MHz wireless broadband licensees during a fixed transition period. During the transition period existing licensees will receive protection for operations that are within their “Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone,” provided that: (1) The stations were registered in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) on or before April 17, 2015; and (2) as of a year later (April 17, 2016) the stations are constructed, in service, and fully compliant with the relevant operating rules.

    Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on a two-pronged approach to defining the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone around “grandfathered” base stations. Under this two-part approach, the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone around each base station would be defined by: (1) Sectors with a 4.4 km radius from each registered base station, and the azimuth and beamwidth registered for that base station with associated unregistered customer premises equipment (CPE) to encompass the operational area of unregistered subscriber stations; and (2) sectors (centered on each base station with the registered azimuth and beamwidth) which would encompass all registered subscriber stations within that sector. The first prong of the approach will provide protection for unregistered subscribers that operate below the mobile power limit of 1 watt/25 MHz EIRP, which are within the range of a registered base station. Since unregistered CPE operates at low power it is only able to effectively communicate with base stations within a limited range. Considering the relative low power of unregistered CPE compared to the power of a base station, the upstream or “talk-back” path determines the maximum range of a system. Using average values for unregistered CPE transmit power and base station receiver sensitivity specifications from existing type certified equipment, and assuming free space loss along a line of sight path, we calculate that a typical unregistered CPE will have a maximum range of approximately 4.4 km for “talk-back” to a base station. The second prong of the approach will provide protection to each base station's registered CPE. Protected sectors around each base station will be defined based on the distance from the base station to the furthest CPE unit registered in ULS and the base station antenna parameters (e.g., azimuth and beamwidth) registered in ULS and a graphic representation of this methodology is included in an appendix to the Notice. The Bureau proposed that the field strength limit of any Citizens Broadband Radio Service station should be 44 dBuV/m/MHz at the boundary of the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone.

    The notice seeks comment on how best to implement the protection methodology, including properly collecting and managing data. Much of the relevant data is already stored in the Commission's ULS but ULS does not record three key elements needed to implement the proposed methodology: (1) Information that would distinguish between base station and CPE use; (2) the specific center frequency on which the station operates; and (3) whether a base station has associated unregistered CPE. Therefore, the Bureau proposes to implement a mechanism whereby licensees will certify which of their base stations are constructed, in service, and in full compliance with the rules by April 17, 2016, and provide the three key elements simultaneously. The notice seeks comment on this approach and alternative approaches. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to that data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where the data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations and all attachments to those documents must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Brian Regan, Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28481 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0995] Information Collection Requirement Being Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Emergency Review and Approval 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 invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the Title as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission is requesting emergency OMB processing of the information collection requirement(s) contained in this notice and has requested OMB approval no later than 26 days after the collection is received at OMB. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0995.

    Title: Section 1.2105(c), Bidding Application and Certification Procedures; Sections 1.2105(c) and 1.2205, Prohibition of Certain Communications.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents and Responses: 10 respondents and 10 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours to 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this currently approved information collection is contained in sections 154(i) and 309(j) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 309(j)(5), and section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2105(c). Statutory authority for the revised information collection is contained in sections 154(i), 309(j), and 1452(a)(3) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 309(j)(5), 1452(a)(3), and sections 1.2105(c) and 1.2205 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2105(c), 1.2205.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $9,000.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will take all reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of all Commission-held data of a reverse auction applicant consistent with the confidentiality requirements of the Spectrum Act and the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. 1452(a)(3); 47 CFR 1.2206. In addition, to the extent necessary, a full power or Class A television broadcast licensee may request confidential treatment of any report of a prohibited communication submitted to the Commission that is not already being treated as confidential pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459. Forward auction applicants are entitled to request confidentiality in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On February 22, 2012, the President signed the Spectrum Act, which, among other things, authorized the Commission to conduct incentive auctions, and directed that the Commission use this innovative tool for an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum to help meet the Nation's growing spectrum needs. See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, sections 6402, 6403, 125 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act), codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G), 1452. The Commission's broadcast incentive auction (BIA) will have three main components: (1) A reverse auction in which broadcast television licensees will submit bids to voluntarily relinquish their spectrum usage rights in exchange for defined shares of proceeds from the forward auction; (2) a repacking of the broadcast television bands; and (3) a forward auction of initial licenses for flexible use of the newly available spectrum.

    The Commission is revising the currently approved information collection to implement new collection requirements resulting from the Commission's adoption of new and modified rules prohibiting certain communications for full power and Class A television broadcast licensees and for applicants seeking to participate in the forward auction component of the BIA and requiring such covered parties to file a report with the Commission within a specified period of time if they make or receive a prohibited communication. Subject to certain exceptions, section 1.2205(b) of the Commission's rules provides that, beginning on the deadline for submitting applications to participate in the reverse auction and until the results of the incentive auction are announced by public notice, all full power and Class A broadcast television licensees are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly any incentive auction applicant's bids or bidding strategies to any other full power or Class A broadcast television licensee or to any forward auction applicant. Section 1.2205(c) requires any party that makes or receives a prohibited communication to report such communication in writing to the Commission immediately, and in no case later than five business days after the communication occurs. Section 1.2205(d) provides the procedures for filing any reports required under section 1.2205(c). Subject to certain exceptions, forward auction applicants in the BIA are subject to a BIA-specific provision in section 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules (in addition to the Commission's existing prohibited communications rule applicable to applicants in traditional Commission auctions), which provides that, beginning on the deadline for submitting applications to participate in the forward auction and until the results of the incentive auction have been announced by public notice, all forward auction applicants are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly any incentive auction applicant's bids or bidding strategies to any full power or Class A broadcast television licensee. Section 1.2105(c) requires forward applicants that make or receive a prohibited communications that is prohibited under section 1.2105(c) to file a report of such a communication with the Commission.

    The Commission's rules prohibiting certain communications in Commission auctions are designed to reinforce existing antitrust laws, facilitate detection of collusive conduct, and deter anticompetitive behavior, without being so strict as to discourage pro-competitive arrangements between auction participants. They also help assure participants that the auction process will be fair and objective, and not subject to collusion. The information collected through the Commission's existing reporting requirement under section 1.2105(c) allows the Commission to enforce the prohibition on forward auction applicants by making clear the responsibility of parties who receive information that potentially violates the rules to promptly report to the Commission, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and fairness of its spectrum auctions. The revised information collection under the BIA-specific rule in section 1.2105(c) and in sections 1.2205(c) and 1.2205(d) will likewise help the Commission enforce the prohibition on covered parties in the BIA, further assuring incentive auction participants that the auction process will be fair and competitive. The prohibited communication reporting requirement required of covered parties will enable the Commission to ensure that no bidder gains an unfair advantage over other bidders in its auctions and thus enhances the competitiveness and fairness of Commission's auctions. The information collected will be reviewed and, if warranted, referred to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau for possible investigation and administrative action. The Commission may also refer allegations of anticompetitive auction conduct to the Department of Justice for investigation.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28572 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2015-N-11] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    60-day Notice of Submission of Information Collection for Approval from Office of Management and Budget.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking public comments concerning the information collection known as the “National Survey of Existing Mortgage Borrowers” (NSEMB). This is a new collection that has not yet been assigned a control number by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year control number.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit comments on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `National Survey of Existing Mortgage Borrowers, (No. 2015-N-11)' ” by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by the agency.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219, ATTENTION: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: “National Survey of Existing Mortgage Borrowers, (No. 2015-N-11)”.

    We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 649-3804.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Forrest Pafenberg, Supervisory Policy Analyst, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 649-3129; or Eric Raudenbush, Assistant General Counsel, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 649-3084, (these are not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. The Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Need for and Use of the Information Collection

    The NSEMB will be a periodic, voluntary survey of individuals who currently have a first mortgage loan secured by single-family residential property. The survey questionnaire will consist of approximately 80-85 questions designed to learn directly from mortgage borrowers about their mortgage experience, any challenges they may have had in maintaining their mortgage and, where applicable, terminating a mortgage. It will request specific information on: The mortgage; the mortgaged property; the borrower's experience with the loan servicer; and the borrower's financial resources and financial knowledge. FHFA is also seeking clearance to pretest the survey questionnaire and related materials from time to time through the use of focus groups. A preliminary draft of the survey questionnaire (which at this time includes only 66 questions) appears at the end of this notice.

    The NSEMB will be a component of the larger “National Mortgage Database” (NMDB) Project (Project), which is a multi-year joint effort of FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (although the NSEMB is being sponsored only by FHFA). The Project is designed to satisfy the Congressionally-mandated requirements of section 1324(c) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.1 Section 1324(c) requires that FHFA conduct a monthly survey to collect data on the characteristics of individual prime and subprime mortgages, and on the borrowers and properties associated with those mortgages in order to enable it to prepare a detailed annual report on the mortgage market activities of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) for review by the appropriate Congressional oversight committees. Section 1324(c) also authorizes and requires FHFA to compile a database of timely and otherwise unavailable residential mortgage market information to be made available to the public.

    1 12 U.S.C. 4544(c).

    In order to fulfill those and other statutory mandates, as well as to support policymaking and research efforts, FHFA and CFPB committed in July 2012 to fund, build and manage the NMDB Project. When fully complete, the NMDB will be a de-identified loan-level database of closed-end first-lien residential mortgages. It will: (1) Be representative of the market as a whole; (2) contain detailed, loan-level information on the terms and performance of mortgages, as well as characteristics of the associated borrowers and properties; (3) be continually updated; (4) have an historical component dating back before the financial crisis of 2008; and (5) provide a sampling frame for surveys to collect additional information.

    The core data in the NMDB are drawn from a random 1-in-20 sample of all closed-end first-lien mortgage files outstanding at any time between January 1998 and the present in the files of Experian, one of the three national credit repositories. A random 1-in-20 sample of mortgages newly reported to Experian is added each quarter. The NMDB also draws information on mortgages in the NMDB datasets from other existing sources, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) database that is maintained by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), property valuation models, and data files maintained by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by federal agencies. Currently, FHFA obtains additional data from its quarterly National Survey of Mortgage Borrowers (NSMB), which provides critical and timely information on newly-originated mortgages and those borrowing that are not available from any existing source, including: The range of nontraditional and subprime mortgage products being offered, the methods by which these mortgages are being marketed, and the characteristics of borrowers for these types of loans.2

    2 OMB has cleared the NSMB under the PRA and assigned it control no. 2590-0012. The current OMB clearance expires on December 31, 2016.

    While the quarterly NSMB provides information on newly-originated mortgages, it does not solicit borrowers' experience with maintaining their existing mortgages; nor is detailed information on that topic available from any other existing source. The NSEMB will solicit such information, including information on borrowers' experience with maintaining a mortgage under financial stress, their experience in soliciting financial assistance, their success in accessing federally-sponsored programs designed to assist them, and, where applicable, any challenges they may have had in terminating a mortgage loan. The NSEMB questionnaire will be sent out to a stratified random sample of 10,000 borrowers in the NMDB. The NSEMB assumes a 25 percent overall response rate, which would yield 2,500 survey responses.

    The information collected through the NSEMB questionnaire will be used, in combination with information obtained from existing sources in the NMDB, to assist FHFA in understanding how the performance of existing mortgages is influencing the residential mortgage market, what different borrower groups are discussing with their servicers when they are under financial stress, and consumers' opinions of federally-sponsored programs designed to assist them. This important, but currently unavailable, information will assist the agency in the supervision of its regulated entities (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks) and in the development and implementation of appropriate and effective policies and programs. The information may also be used for research and analysis by other federal agencies that have regulatory and supervisory responsibilities/mandates related to mortgage markets and to provide a resource for research and analysis by academics and other interested parties outside of the government.

    FHFA expects that, in the process of developing the initial and any subsequent NSEMB survey questionnaires and related materials, it will sponsor one or more focus groups to pretest those materials. Such pretesting will ultimately help to ensure that the survey respondents can and will answer the survey questions and will provide useful data on their experiences with maintaining their existing mortgages. FHFA will use information collected through the focus groups to assist in drafting and modifying the survey questions and instructions, as well as the related communications, to read in the way that will be most readily understood by the survey respondents and that will be most likely to elicit usable responses. Such information will also be used help the agency decide on how best to organize and format the survey questionnaire.

    B. Burden Estimate

    While FHFA currently has firm plans to conduct the survey only once—in the second quarter of 2016—it may decide to conduct further periodic NSEMB surveys once the first survey is completed. The agency therefore estimates that the survey will be conducted, on average, once annually over the next three years and that it will conduct pre-testing on each set of annual survey materials. FHFA has analyzed the hour burden on members of the public associated with pre-testing the survey materials (24 hours) and with conducting the survey (5,000 hours) and estimates the total annual hour burden imposed on the public by this information collection to be 5,024 hours. The estimate for each phase of the collection was calculated as follows:

    Pre-Testing the Materials

    FHFA estimates that it will sponsor two focus groups prior to conducting each survey, with 12 participants in each focus group, for a total of 24 focus group participants. It estimates the participation time for each focus group participant to be one hour, resulting in a total annual burden estimate of 24 hours for the pre-testing phase of the collection (2 focus groups per year × 12 participants in each group × 1 hour per participant = 24 hours).

    Conducting the Survey

    FHFA estimates that the NSEMB questionnaire will be sent to 10,000 recipients each time it is conducted. Although the agency expects only 2,500 of those surveys to be returned, it assumes that all of the surveys will be returned for purposes of this burden calculation. Based on the reported experience of respondents to the quarterly NSMB questionnaire, which contains a similar number of questions, FHFA estimates that it will take each respondent 30 minutes to complete each survey, including the gathering of necessary materials to respond to the questions. This results in a total annual burden estimate of 5,000 hours for the survey phase of this collection (1 survey per year × 10,000 respondents per survey × 30 minutes per respondent = 5,000 hours).

    C. Comment Request

    FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) The accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on survey respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Kevin Winkler, Chief Information Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency. BILLING CODE 8070-01-P EN10NO15.004 EN10NO15.005 EN10NO15.006 EN10NO15.007 EN10NO15.008 EN10NO15.009 EN10NO15.010
    [FR Doc. 2015-28483 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-C
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 27, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Robert J. Foley, Roseau, Minnesota; Catherine Ann Swenson, San Luis Obispo, California; Elizabeth Foley, Burlingame, California; Colleen Foley-Sacks, Portland, Oregon; and Scott M. Foley, West St. Paul, Minnesota; each to retain voting shares of Roseau Realty Co., Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Citizens State Bank of Roseau, both in Roseau, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 5, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28545 Filed 11-9-15; 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 December 4, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Haviland Bancshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Greensburg, Kansas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring an additional 4.4 percent, for a total of up to 28 percent, of the voting shares of Haviland Bancshares, Inc., and thereby acquire The Haviland State Bank, both in Haviland, Kansas.

    In connection with this application, applicant also has applied to engage indirectly in general insurance activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 4, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28469 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 24, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Colter Cumin, Deer Lodge, Montana; to acquire voting shares of First Security Group, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Security Bank of Deer Lodge, both in Deer Lodge, Montana.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Castle Creek Capital Partners V, LP, and persons or entities that are acting with or control Castle Creek Capital Partners V, LP, including Castle Creek Capital V LLC, Castle Creek Advisors IV LLC, JME Advisory Corp., Legions IV Corp., Mikesell Advisory Corp., Pietrzak Advisory Corp., Scavuzzo Advisory Corp., Volk Advisory Corp., Rana Advisory Corp., Szumski Advisory Corp., John M. Eggemeyer, III, Mark G. Merlo, J. Mikesell Thomas, John T. Pietrzak, Anthony R. Scavuzzo, David J. Volk, Sundeep Rana, and Martin Szumski, all of Rancho Santa Fe, California, and Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic Master Retirement Trust, of Rochester, Minnesota; to acquire voting shares of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Guaranty Bank, both in Springfield, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 4, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28468 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2015-27768) published on page 67405 of the issue for Monday, November 2, 2015.

    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston heading, the entry for ESB Bancorp MHC, Easthampton, Massachusetts, is revised to read as follows:

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:

    1. ESB Bancorp MHC, Easthampton, Massachusetts; (“ESB MHC”) to merge with Hometown Community Bancorp MHC, Oxford, Massachusetts (“Hometown MHC”), with ESB MHC as the surviving entity to be known as “Hometown Financial Group, MHC”; and ii) ESB Bancorp, Inc., Easthampton, Massachusetts (“ESB Bancorp”), to merge with Hometown Community Bancorp, Inc., Oxford, Massachusetts (“Hometown Bancorp”), with ESB Bancorp as the surviving entity to be known as “Hometown Financial Group, Inc. Upon consummation of the merger, Easthampton Savings Bank and Hometown Bank will remain separate wholly-owned subsidiaries of Hometown Financial Group, Inc.

    Comments on this application must be received by November 27, 2015.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 4, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28467 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 151 0129] Mylan N.V.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mylanperrigoconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Mylan N.V—Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0129” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mylanperrigoconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Mylan N.V.—Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0129” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jasmine Rosner (202-326-3558), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for November 3, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 3, 2015. Write “Mylan N.V.—Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0129” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mylanperrigoconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Mylan N.V.—Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0129” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before December 3, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Mylan N.V. (“Mylan”) that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Mylan's acquisition of Perrigo Company plc (“Perrigo”). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, Mylan is required to divest to Alvogen, Inc. (“Alvogen”) all of its rights and assets to the following generic pharmaceutical products: (1) Acyclovir ointment; (2) bromocriptine mesylate tablets; (3) clindamycin phosphate/benzoyl peroxide gel; (4) hydromorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets; (5) liothyronine sodium tablets; (6) polyethylene glycol 3350 over-the-counter (“OTC”) oral solution packets; and (7) scopolamine extended release transdermal patches.

    The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again evaluate the proposed Consent Agreement, along with the comments received, to make a final decision as to whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).

    On September 14, 2015, Mylan launched a hostile tender offer to gain a controlling interest in Perrigo. The Commission alleges in its Complaint that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening current and future competition in seven generic pharmaceutical markets in the United States. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving the competition that otherwise would be eliminated by the proposed acquisition.

    I. The Products and Structure of the Markets

    A generic pharmaceutical drug contains the same active ingredient as the brand name product, but typically at a much more affordable price. Pharmaceutical companies usually launch generic versions of drugs after a branded product loses its patent protection. When only one generic product is available, the price for the branded product typically acts as a ceiling above which the generic manufacturer cannot price its product. During this period, the branded product competes directly with the generic. Once multiple generic suppliers enter a market, the branded drug manufacturer usually ceases to provide any competitive constraint on the prices for generic versions of the drug. Rather, generic suppliers compete only against each other.

    Mylan's proposed acquisition of Perrigo will lessen competition in seven concentrated generic pharmaceutical product markets by reducing the number of current or future suppliers competing in each market. The proposed acquisition will reduce current competition in four generic pharmaceutical markets: (1) Bromocriptine mesylate tablets; (2) clindamycin phosphate/benzoyl peroxide gel; (3) liothyronine sodium tablets; and (4) polyethylene glycol 3350 OTC oral solution packets.

    • Bromocriptine mesylate is a dopamine agonist used to treat Type 2 diabetes, pituitary tumors, Parkinson's disease, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and hyperprolactinemia. The market for generic 2.5 mg bromocriptine mesylate tablets is highly concentrated with only three current suppliers: Mylan, Perrigo, and Sandoz AG. Absent a remedy, the proposed transaction would consolidate the market from three to two suppliers.

    • Clindamycin phosphate/benzoyl peroxide gel is a combination antibiotic and drying agent used to stop the bacterial infection that causes acne. Today, only Mylan supplies the market with generic clindamycin phosphate 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel. Perrigo recently received FDA approval for generic clindamycin phosphate 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel and is poised to start supplying the market in the near future. As a result, the proposed transaction would reduce the number of generic clindamycin phosphate 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel suppliers from two to one.

    • Liothyronine sodium is a synthetic thyroid hormone used to treat hypothyroidism and to treat or prevent enlarged thyroid glands. Currently, only three suppliers provide generic liothyronine sodium tablets in the 0.005 mg, 0.025 mg, and 0.05 mg strengths: Mylan, Perrigo, and SigmaPharm Laboratories, LLC. The proposed transaction would further consolidate an already highly concentrated market, leaving two suppliers post-transaction.

    • Polyethylene glycol 3350, a laxative, is an OTC oral solution packet used to treat occasional constipation. In the 17 gm/packet OTC market, Mylan, Perrigo, and Gavis Pharmaceuticals, LLC, are the only active suppliers in the market. As a result, the proposed transaction would consolidate the number of active suppliers of generic polyethylene glycol 3350 OTC oral solution packets from three to two.

    Additionally, the proposed acquisition will reduce future competition in three generic pharmaceutical markets: (1) Acyclovir ointment; (2) hydromorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets; and (3) scopolamine extended release transdermal patches. In each of these markets, either Mylan or Perrigo is a likely new entrant in the near future. Without a remedy, the proposed acquisition would eliminate an independent entrant into each market, likely depriving customers of the significant cost savings that result when an additional generic supplier enters a concentrated market.

    • Acyclovir ointment is a topical product used to slow the growth and spread of the herpes virus. Mylan and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC currently hold ANDAs and supply acyclovir 5% ointment. Allergan plc (“Allergan”) also sells an authorized generic version of acyclovir 5% ointment. Perrigo is one of a limited number of suppliers likely to enter this market in the near future.

    • Hydromorphone hydrochloride is an analgesic used to treat moderate to severe pain in narcotic-tolerant patients. Perrigo and Allergan hold ANDAs for 8 mg, 12 mg, and 16 mg extended release tablets. In addition, Mallinckrodt plc markets an authorized generic version of hydromorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets. Mylan is one of a limited number of suppliers likely to enter this market in the near future.

    • Scopolamine transdermal patches prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness and recovery from anesthesia and surgery. Novartis AG currently markets the branded version, Transderm Scop, which is available as a 1 mg/72 hour extended release transdermal patch. Perrigo holds the only approved ANDA for the generic version of Transderm Scop. Mylan is one of a limited number of other suppliers likely to enter this market in the near future. As there is no generic version of Transderm Scop on the market today, it is likely that the price for scopolamine transdermal patches would significantly decrease with the onset of generic competition. Without a remedy, the proposed acquisition would eliminate the price reductions that would likely have accompanied Mylan's independent entry into this market.

    II. Entry

    Entry into each of these generic pharmaceutical markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition. The combination of drug development times and regulatory requirements, including approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), is costly and lengthy.

    III. Effects

    The proposed acquisition likely would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers by eliminating current or future competition between Mylan and Perrigo in these seven concentrated markets. In each of these markets, Mylan and Perrigo are two of a limited number of current or likely future suppliers in the United States. Market participants characterize each of the markets as a current or likely future commodity market, in which the number of generic suppliers has a direct impact on pricing. Customers and competitors have observed that the price of generic pharmaceutical products decreases with new entry even after several suppliers have entered the market. Removal of an independent generic pharmaceutical supplier from the relevant markets in which Mylan and Perrigo currently compete likely would result in significantly higher prices post-acquisition. Similarly, the elimination of a future independent competitor would prevent the price decreases that are likely to result from the firm's entry. Thus, absent a remedy, the proposed acquisition will likely cause U.S. consumers to pay significantly higher prices for these generic drugs.

    IV. The Consent Agreement

    The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in each relevant market. Under the Consent Agreement, Mylan is required to divest to Alvogen its rights to the seven relevant products. Alvogen is an international pharmaceutical company, with commercial operations in thirty-four countries. Its business focuses on developing, manufacturing, and distributing generic, branded, and OTC pharmaceutical products. Mylan must accomplish the divestitures to Alvogen and relinquish its rights to these products no later than thirty days after the proposed acquisition is consummated.

    The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the proposed acquisition. If the Commission determines that Alvogen is not an acceptable acquirer, or that the manner of the divestitures is not acceptable, the proposed Order requires Mylan to unwind the sale of rights to Alvogen and to divest the products to a Commission-approved acquirer within six months of the date the Order becomes final. The proposed Order further allows the Commission to appoint a trustee if Mylan fails to divest the products as required.

    The proposed Consent Agreement contains several provisions to help ensure that the divestitures are successful. The Order requires Mylan to take all action to maintain the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the products to be divested until such time that they are transferred to a Commission-approved acquirer. Mylan must provide transitional services to Alvogen to assist it in establishing independent manufacturing capabilities. These transitional services include technical assistance to manufacture the divestiture products in substantially the same manner and quality employed or achieved by Mylan, and advice and training from knowledgeable Mylan employees. Mylan must also provide Alvogen with a supply of the divested products while Mylan transfers manufacturing technology to Alvogen or its designated manufacturer. The goal of the transitional services is to ensure that Alvogen will be able to operate independent of Mylan in the manufacture and sale of the divested products. Nothing in the Consent Agreement, however, precludes Alvogen from sourcing active pharmaceutical ingredients or other divestiture product inputs from Mylan on a negotiated basis.

    As Alvogen was unable to perform due diligence on the Perrigo products at issue, Mylan divested its own on-market, generic acyclovir ointment product rather than Perrigo's product in development. Because the competition that is preserved by the proposed Consent Agreement will only occur when the Perrigo product is launched, the proposed Order permits Mylan to retain the right to sell acyclovir ointment through a license from Alvogen until thirty days after Mylan receives approval for the Perrigo ANDA, but for no longer than three years. This provision is designed to permit Mylan to remain an active market participant pending the approval of Perrigo's acyclovir ointment ANDA but also ensures Mylan's continued incentive to develop and launch the Perrigo product.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28522 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-0943; Docket No. CDC-2015-0098] Proposed Data Collections 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 Data Collection for the Residential Care Community and Adult Day Services Center Components of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers. The purpose is to collect data for the residential care community and adult day services center components for the 2016 wave of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0098 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

    Residential Care Community and Adult Day Service Center Components of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (OMB Control No. 0920-0943 Exp. Date: 07/31/2015)—Reinstatement with change—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, “shall collect statistics on health resources . . . [and] utilization of health care, including extended care facilities, and other institutions.”

    NCHS seeks approval to collect data for the residential care community (RCC) and adult day services center (ADSC) survey components of the 3rd wave of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (NSLTCP). A two year clearance is requested.

    As background here are some details on the complete study design. The NSLTCP, a voluntary survey, is designed to (1) broaden NCHS' ongoing coverage of paid, regulated long-term care (LTC) providers; (2) merge with existing administrative data on LTC providers and service users (i.e., Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data on nursing homes and residents, home health agencies and patients, and hospices and patients); (3) update data more frequently on LTC providers and service users for which nationally representative administrative data do not exist; and (4) enable comparisons across LTC sectors and timely monitoring of supply and use of these sectors over time.

    Data will be collected from two types of LTC providers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia: 11,690 RCCs and 5,440 ADSCs in each wave. Data were collected in 2012 and 2014. The data to be collected beginning in 2016 include the basic characteristics, services, staffing, and practices of RCCs and ADSCs, and aggregate-level distributions of the demographics, selected health conditions and health care utilization, physical functioning, and cognitive functioning of RCC residents and ADSC participants.

    Expected users of data from this collection effort include, but are not limited to CDC; other Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) agencies, such as the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; associations, such as LeadingAge (formerly the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging), National Center for Assisted Living, American Seniors Housing Association, Assisted Living Federation of America, and National Adult Day Services Association; universities; foundations; and other private sector organizations such as the Alzheimer's Association and the AARP Public Policy Institute.

    Expected burden from data collection is 30 minutes per respondent. We estimate that 5% of RCC and ADSC directors will be called for an additional 5 minutes of data retrieval when there are errors or omissions in their returned questionnaires. Two year clearance is requested to cover the collection of data. The burden for the collection is shown in Table 1 below. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Table Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden (in hrs.)
    RCC Director/Designated Staff RCC Questionnaire 5,846 1 30/60 2,923 ADSC Director/Designated Staff ADSC Questionnaire 2,720 1 30/60 1,360 RCC and ADSC Directors/Designated Staff Data Retrieval 429 1 5/60 36 Total 4,319
    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. 2015-28475 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16CO; Docket No. CDC-2015-0099] 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 for Developing a Self-Management Tool for Individuals with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), to assess the value of a tool aimed to enhance the ability of persons with SLE to effectively manage their condition.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0099 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

    Developing a Self-Management Tool for Individuals with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system produces antibodies to cells within the body leading to widespread inflammation and tissue damage. SLE has a variety of clinical manifestations and can affect joints, skin, the brain, lungs, kidneys, and blood vessels. Effective SLE management depends not only upon clinical interventions, but also on self-management—those things done on a day-to-day basis to manage SLE. SLE self-management requires gaining essential knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage the condition.

    CDC previously launched a two-year project called “Filling a Gap: Creating Educational Program, Tools, or Materials to Enhance Self-Management in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus” to identify and address the needs of lupus patients in practicing effective self-management. The purpose of this project is to develop a SLE self-management tool to improve the ability of people living with lupus to manage their condition.

    The proposed information collection will assess a SLE self-management tool that is in development to ensure that the tool is usable and useful to members of the target audience. The tool is expected to be comprised of multiple SLE self-management resources that may include, but are not limited to: Education resources about fatigue management, pain management, healthy diet, and exercise; symptom trackers; medication trackers; appointment calendars; resources about communication with family, friends, and co-workers about SLE; and strategies for coping with depression and anxiety. CDC plans to make the tool available in an electronic format (web-based or a native mobile application) and will consider making it available as a printed resource, depending on the feedback obtained during the testing process.

    The information collection will also gauge the needs of the target audience(s), tool format and delivery method(s), and the tool's clarity, relevance, salience and appeal. A series of focus groups with women with a diagnosis of SLE, and one-on-one telephone interviews with men with a diagnosis of SLE will be conducted to assess the tool. The same discussion guide will be used for all information collection. The estimated burden per response for participating in a focus group discussion is 2 hours. The estimated burden per response for a discussion conducted via telephone interview is 45 minutes. Respondent burden also includes 2 hours for reviewing the draft SLE self-management tool in advance of the focus group meeting or telephone interview.

    OMB approval is requested for one year. Participation is voluntary and 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 hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Women with SLE diagnosis Screener 192 1 10/60 32 Review of the CDC SLE Self-Management Tool 128 1 2 256 Discussion Guide 128 1 2 256 Men with SLE diagnosis Screener 40 1 10/60 7 Review of the CDC SLE Self-Management Tool 20 2 2 40 Discussion Guide 20 1 45/60 15 Total 606
    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. 2015-28472 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16CP; Docket No. CDC-2015-0100] 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 request entitled “Data Collection for Community-based Tick Control for the Prevention of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever in Hermosillo, Mexico.” This project will be carried out in collaboration with the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the University of Sonora School of Medicine (UNSOM) to assess the efficacy and impact of a community based tick prevention project.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0100 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

    Community-based Tick Control for the Prevention of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever in Hermosillo, Mexico”—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch (RZB) requests approval of a public health intervention assessment tool to demonstrate the efficacy and impact of public health research related to the prevention of Rocky Mountain spotted fever [RMSF] in Hermosillo, Mexico. These activities include monitoring cases, conducting tick control interventions, and performing participant surveys to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices relating to tick control and prevention.

    The information collection for which approval is sought is in accordance with RZB's mission to reduce morbidity and mortality of rickettsial diseases and decrease the burden of disease through control and prevention methods. Authorizing Legislation comes from section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).

    Approval for a three-year data collection will allow RZB to collect information related to risk of RMSF to improve and inform prevention activities. Successful execution of RZB's public health mission requires use data collection activities in collaboration with multiple local and international partners. RZB proposes the following use of pre/posttests to evaluate the changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to tick control as well as perceived impact of the intervention project. The project will also collect basic household information to document their consent to participate. Data collection will be conducted in-person. Data will be recorded on paper forms and then entered into an electronic database.

    RZB estimates involvement of 1,300 respondents and a maximum of 600 hours of burden for research activities each year. The collected information will not impose a cost burden on the respondents beyond that associated with their time to provide the required data.

    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)
  • General Public Registration 500 1 20/60 167 General Public KAP survey (pre and post intervention) 800 2 20/60 533 Total 700
    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. 2015-28473 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16CQ; Docket No. CDC-2015-0101] 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 “Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN)” data collection.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0101 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

    Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN)—Existing Information Collection in use Without an OMB Control Number—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Healthcare in the United States is a growing industry that employs more than 19 million workers with a substantial burden of occupational injuries and illnesses. In 2013, one in five workers in the healthcare and social assistance industry reported a nonfatal job-related injury. This is the highest number of non-fatal injuries reported among all private industries.

    U.S. healthcare facilities depend on surveillance data to track the incidence of injuries, identify risk factors, target prevention activities and evaluate interventions to reduce the occurrence of occupational injury among healthcare personnel. To assist healthcare facilities to enhance capacity to use existing surveillance data, in 2012, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) launched the Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN), a voluntary surveillance system developed specifically for healthcare personnel environment. OHSN is a free and secure electronic occupational safety and health surveillance system that has provided U.S. healthcare facilities the ability to efficiently analyze their own occupational injury data while, at the same time, serving as a source for national surveillance by sharing their de-identified injury data with NIOSH. Unlike other national occupational surveillance systems, OHSN offers an integrated approach to monitor standard occupational injuries among facility-based healthcare personnel in the U.S. and to provide timely, facility-level feedback to participants with benchmarking and analyses capabilities.

    OHSN collects two types of data from participating facilities. Facilities collect these data to meet specific regulatory or administrative requirements. Thus, no new data collection is required. Participating facilities provide OHSN a onetime enrollment. The enrollment form requests information about the participating facility, which is publically available from American Hospital Association. Participating facilities also provide a monthly submission of occupational injury data collected in the previous month. These data are sent to OHSN via a web portal in a format using standardized data elements and value sets. No personal identifiable information is transmitted to OHSN. Data elements include: Injury time, location and surrounding circumstances of each injury event.

    Healthcare facilities download data through an OHSN-provided data conversion and mapping tools which uploads the monthly occupational injury data.

    Each participating facility has access to the OHSN web portal, facilities are able to analyze current and historical data to benchmark their worker injury rates and trends and compare their data to aggregate data from similar workplaces. In addition they are able to assess the impact of prevention efforts on occupational health and safety over time using aggregated data analysis and visualization tools (charts and graphs).

    OHSN currently tracks three common, serious, and preventable categories of traumatic injury to healthcare personnel: Slips, trips and falls; musculoskeletal disorders resulting from patient handling and movement events; and workplace violence. NIOSH proposes to add new modules about exposure to sharps injury and blood and body fluids exposures.

    NIOSH analyzes the data submitted to OHSN to conduct occupational health surveillance and to produce periodic aggregate reports on the occurrence of and risk factors for occupational injuries among all OHSN facilities.

    OHSN has been operating continuously and receiving voluntary monthly reports from 116 participating facilities since 2012 and is projected to enroll total of 300 facilities in the next 3 years. NIOSH seeks approval for an OMB control number to continue this important work. There is no cost to the 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 hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • U.S. healthcare facilities Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN) 300 12 3/60 180 U.S. healthcare facilities Enrollment form 300 1 1/60 5 Total 185
    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. 2015-28474 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16CM; Docket No. CDC-2015-0097] 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. CDC is requesting a new three-year approval for “The Cooperative Re-engagement Controlled Trial (CoRECT)” information collections.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0097 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

    The Cooperative Re-engagement Controlled Trial (CoRECT)—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) requests a new three-year OMB approval for information collection for a new research study entitled “The Cooperative Re-engagement Controlled Trial (CoRECT)”. The purpose of the study is to evaluate a combined health department and clinic intervention to improve engagement in HIV care. Increasing the number of people living with HIV who access HIV care and achieve viral load suppression addresses one of the priorities of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.

    The CoRECT Study data collection is comprised of six core components: 1. Electronic clinic data abstraction (Electronic Medical Record (EMR) abstraction will be conducted by project clinic staff at each project clinic to develop the clinic-based “Out of Care” list; 2. electronic surveillance data abstraction (Electronic surveillance data abstraction will be conducted by project health department staff at each health department to develop the health department based “Out of Care” list); 3. a “Barriers to Care” survey (These surveys will provide information regarding barriers to accessing healthcare (e.g., transportation, financial assistance, housing, substance abuse services, etc.); 4. “Standard of Care” survey (Investigators will administer this survey to clinic managers, at baseline and every six months during the study period to assess how the delivery of health services has evolved over time) 5. Preliminary Case Investigations form (a listing of potential out-of-care patients will be reviewed to determine those who appear to be out-of-care, as determined by study eligibility, versus those who meet criteria for exclusion); and 6) Case Conference form (project health department staff will determine if potentially eligible patients met criteria for inclusion in the study and if so randomization will occur).

    Prospective data collection will provide information about participant's baseline characteristics including sex, race/ethnicity, HIV exposure risk category, CD4 and viral load test results, date of first clinic visit, and insurance status.

    HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) can durably suppress the plasma HIV viral load, which improves individual survival and dramatically reduces further HIV transmission. Increasing the number of people living with HIV who access HIV care and achieve viral load suppression is a priority of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy. Within the continuum of HIV care in the United States, improvements in linkage to and retention in effective care provide the greatest opportunity to improve rates of HIV viral suppression. It is estimated that of the 1.2 million persons living with HIV in 2011, only 40% were engaged in HIV medical care and only 30% achieved viral suppression.

    HIV clinical trials with enhanced case management have demonstrated that interventions provided by the health department can improve linkage to HIV care and interventions provided by the clinic can improve retention in HIV care. Although linkage to care has improved in many health department jurisdictions, being linked to care is not enough. There is a need to ensure that: (i) People diagnosed with HIV and linked to care are engaging medical care (i.e., attending their enrollment appointment and returning for follow-up medical appointments); and (ii) people who have disengaged from HIV care (i.e., have missed medical appointments and have not been seen in clinic for more than 6 months) are able to efficiently re-engage in care. There have been no randomized controlled studies using a Data-to-Care approach to identify and re-engage out of care persons. Controlled studies such as the CoRECT study are critical to determine the effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions.

    The CoRECT study is a randomized controlled trial that seeks to establish a data-sharing partnership between health departments and HIV care clinical providers to identify HIV-infected persons who are out of care and evaluate an intervention that aims to have randomized participants: (a) Link to an HIV clinic; (b) remain in HIV medical care; (c) achieve HIV viral load suppression within 12 months; and (d) achieve durable HIV viral load suppression over 18 months.

    The study is funded by CDC through cooperative agreements with the Connecticut State Department of Public Health (in collaboration with Yale University School of Medicine), the Massachusetts State Department of Public Health, and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health.

    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 hours
  • Study Coordinator Electronic transmittal of surveillance variables 3 4 1 12 Clinic data manager Electronic transmittal of clinical variables 46 4 1 184 CoRECT study Participants Barriers to Care Survey 1,200 1 30/60 600 Clinical Nurse Coordinator Standard of Care Survey 46 2 45/60 69 Clinic data manager Case Conference Session 46 12 1 552 CoRECT study Coordinator (health department) Case Conference Session 3 12 1 36 CoRECT study Coordinator (health department) Preliminary Case Investigation 3 12 1 36 Clinic Data Manager Preliminary Case Investigation 3 12 1 36 Total 1,525
    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. 2015-28471 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; NIH Office of Intramural Training & Education Application (OD) SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE), Office of the Director (OD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Patricia Wagner, Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE), 2 Center Drive; Building 2/Room 2E06; Bethesda, Maryland 20892, or call non-toll-free number 240-476-3619, or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIH Office of Intramural Training & Education Application, Revision, 0925-0299 Expiration Date: 3/31/2016, Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The Office of Intramural Training & Education (OITE) administers a variety of programs and initiatives to recruit pre-college through pre-doctoral educational level individuals into the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (NIH-IRP) to facilitate their development into future biomedical scientists. The proposed information collection is necessary in order to determine the eligibility and quality of potential awardees for traineeships in these programs. The applications for admission consideration include key areas such as: Personal information, ability to meet eligibility criteria, contact information, university assigned student identification number, training program selection, scientific discipline interests, educational history, standardized examination scores, reference information, resume components, employment history, employment interests, dissertation research details, letters of recommendation, financial aid history, sensitive data, travel information, as well as feedback questions about interviews and application submission experiences. Sensitive data collected on the applicants: Race, gender, ethnicity, relatives at the NIH, and recruitment method, are made available only to OITE staff members or in aggregate form to select the NIH offices and are not used by the admission committees for admission consideration.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 16,332.55.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • annually per
  • respondent
  • Estimated
  • total annual
  • burden hours
  • Estimated
  • total annual
  • burden hours
  • Summer Internship Program—Application 7,525 1 1 7,525 Amgen Scholars at NIH Program—Supplemental Application 300 1 3/60 15 High School Scientific Training & Enrichment Program—Contact Information 40 1 3/60 2 NIH Visit Week—Application 30 1 1 30 Undergraduate Scholarship Program (UGSP)—Application 150 1 1 150 Undergraduate Scholarship Program—Certificate of Exceptional Financial Need (Completed by Applicant) 300 1 3/60 15 Undergraduate Scholarship Program—Certificate of Exceptional Financial Need (Completed by University Staff) 300 1 15/60 75 Undergraduate Scholarship Program (UGSP)—Renewal Application 15 1 1 15 Undergraduate Scholarship Program—Deferment Form (Completed by UGSP Scholar) 40 1 3/60 2 Undergraduate Scholarship Program—Deferment Form (Completed by University Staff) 40 1 15/60 10 Undergraduate Scholarship Program—Scholar Contract 30 1 10/60 5 Undergraduate Scholarship Program—Evaluation of Scholar PayBack Period 50 1 15/60 13 Postbaccalaureate/Technical Training Program—Application 2,050 1 1 2,050 NIH Academy Training Program—Supplemental Application 225 1 1 225 Graduate Partnerships Program—Application 275 1 1 275 Graduate Partnerships Program—Registration 150 1 1 150 Graduate Partnerships Program—Interview Experience Survey (60% Response Rate) 30 1 10/60 5 Evaluation—Recommendation Letters for Prospective Students 22,570 1 15/60 5,643 Survey—Optional Statistics (Majority of Programs; 25% Response Rate) 2,571 1 3/60 129 Totals 36,691 36,691 16,334
    Dated: November 4, 2015. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28600 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, November 30, 2015, 6:30 p.m. to December 2, 2015, 12:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2015, 80 FR 65785.

    The open session on December 2, 2015 has been canceled. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28583 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIH Support for Conferences & Scientific Meetings (Parent R13).

    Date: December 2-4, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3F52B, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Nancy Vazquez-Maldonado, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F52B, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5044, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Investigator Initiated Clinical Trial Applications.

    Date: December 3, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 4C100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jay R. Radke, Ph.D., AIDS Review Branch, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G11B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5046, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 4, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28588 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIAID Resource Related Research Projects (R24).

    Date: December 7, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3G30, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dharmendar Rathore, Ph.D., Senior Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G30, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, 240-669-5058, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01).

    Date: December 10, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 4H100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Amir Emanuel Zeituni, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9834, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-2550.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: November 4, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28584 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, “Consortia for Innovative AIDS Research in Nonhuman Primates (UM1).”

    Date: December 14-15, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rooms 3C100 and 4C100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Roberta Binder, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G21A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5050, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, “NIAID RESOURCE-RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS (R24).”

    Date: January 27, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 4F100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lynn Rust, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G42A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5069, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: November 5, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28582 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 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, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

    Date: December 9-10, 2015.

    Time: December 9, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 30, Room 117, 30 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Time: December 10, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to adjournment.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 30, Room 117, 30 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Alicia J. Dombroski, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, Natl. Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/about/CouncilCommittees.asp, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 4, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28586 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, November 19, 2015, 8:00 p.m. to November 20, 2015 5:00 p.m., St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036 which was published in the Federal Register on October 09, 2015, 2015-61217.

    The meeting location has changed from the St. Gregory Hotel, Washington DC to the Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, DC. The meeting date has changed from Nov. 19-20, 2015 to Nov. 19, 2015 only. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28585 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis, Panel NIAID Resource Related Research Projects (R24).

    Date: December 3, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Roberta Binder, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G21A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5050, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, “NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34).”

    Date: December 9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: B. Duane Price, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, RM 3G50, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, 240-669-5074, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 4, 2015. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28587 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30 Day Comment Request; Evaluation of the Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) Program (OD) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on 06/03/2015 (Vol. 80, No. 106, Pages 31610-31611) and allowed 60 days for public comment. Zero public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The Office of Science Education/SEPA, National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Tony Beck, Ph.D., Office of Science Education/SEPA, Office of Research Infrastructure Programs, Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 206, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number 301-435-0805 or email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Evaluation of the Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) Program, 0925-NEW, the Office of Science Education/SEPA, within the Office of the Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP), an office of the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), within the Office of the Director (OD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The Science Education Partnership Award Program is a program in the Office of the Research Infrastructure Programs within the Office of Research Infrastructure Program of the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives. The program provides 5-year grants for PK-12 educational projects, science centers, and museum exhibits to increase students' interest in pursuing science-related careers, deliver topical and interactive information about NIH-funded medical research, and cultivate an understanding about healthy living habits among the general public. SEPA is undertaking an evaluation to examine the extent to which SEPA grants awarded from 2004 through 2014 have met goals related to project structure, partnership formation, and evaluation quality. The evaluation will utilize archival grant project data (e.g., SEPA solicitations, project proposals, annual and final reports, and summative evaluations). The evaluation will also collect new data to (1) determine the extent to which the SEPA portfolio is aligned with the program's overall goals; (2) assess how the SEPA Program has contributed to the creation and/or enrichment of beneficial productive partnerships; and (3) determine the extent to which the SEPA Program is generating a rigorous evidence-based system that provides high-quality evaluations to inform the knowledge base. The goal of this process evaluation is to provide SEPA, program staff, the NIH, and other interested stakeholders with information about how the program is operating, the extent to which projects address the program's multiple goals, and the extent to which project-level evaluations are informing and enhancing the quality of work in the field.

    OMB approval is requested for one year. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 523.

    Estimated of Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Data collection type Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • PI Web survey 156 1 30/60 78 Telephone script to schedule interview 34 1 5/60 3 Telephone interview 34 1 1 34 Telephone script to schedule site visit 34 1 5/60 3 Site visit interview 6 1 90/60 9 Project partner Web survey 312 1 30/60 156 Telephone script to schedule interview 74 1 5/60 7 Telephone interview 74 1 1 74 Telephone script to schedule site visit 74 1 5/60 7 Site visit interview 6 1 90/60 9 Other key staff Telephone script to schedule site visit 90 1 5/60 8 Site visit interview 90 1 90/60 135 Total 558 523
    Dated: November 4, 2015. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28601 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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; 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.

    Proposed Project: Now Is the Time (NITT)—Healthy Transitions (HT) Evaluation—New

    SAMHSA is conducting a national evaluation of the Now is the Time (NITT) initiative, which includes separate programs—NITT Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education)—State Educational Agency (SEA), Healthy Transitions (HT), and two Minority Fellowship Programs (Youth and Addiction Counselors). These programs are united by their focus on capacity building, system change, and workforce development.

    NITT-HT, which is the focus of this data collection, represents a response to the fourth component of President Obama's NITT Initiative: Increasing access to mental health services. The purpose of the NITT-HT program is to improve access to treatment and support services for youth/young adults 16-25 years that either have, or are at risk of developing a mental illness or substance use disorder, and are at high risk of suicide. NITT-HT grants were made to 17 state or local jurisdictions, each of which include 2-3 learning laboratories (n = 43), which are the local communities of practice responsible for implementing the NITT-HT approach. The NITT-HT program aims to increase awareness about early signs and symptoms of mental health conditions in the community; identify action strategies to use when a mental health concern is detected; provide training to provider and community groups to improve services and supports for youth/young adults; enhance peer and family supports; and develop effective services and interventions for youth and young adults with a serious mental health condition and their families. The NITT-HT evaluation is designed to understand whether and how NITT-HT grantees reach these program goals by examining system- and grantee-level processes and system- and client-level outcomes. Data collection efforts that will support the evaluation are described below.

    The Community Support for Transition Inventory (CSTI) will assess systems change for communities implementing comprehensive, community-based approaches to improve outcomes for emerging adults with serious mental health conditions. The CSTI is organized around seven themes: Community partnership, collaborative action, transition planning quality assurance and support, workforce, fiscal policies and sustainability, access to needed support and services, and accountability. The CSTI is a web-based survey to be completed by 1,075 community leaders (15-25 community leaders per 43 learning laboratories) once during Year 2 and once during Year 4 of the grant period. Community leaders include members of the local advisory or steering committee, staff of the NITT-HT program, staff of agencies providing portions of the services, and young adult and family members' advocates.

    The State Support for Transition Inventory (SSTI) will assess state support for systems change and is organized around six themes (partnership, collaborative action, workforce, fiscal policies & sustainability, access to needed supports & services, and accountability). The SSTI is a web-based survey to be completed by 425 state leadership members (20-25 state leaders per 17 grantees) once during Year 2 and once during Year 4 of the grant period. State leadership members include administrators or staff from state agencies responsible for aspects of services to youth/young adults (e.g., mental health, child welfare, education), youth/young adult and adult allies who are active in promoting, planning, or overseeing services at the state level, as well as other members of state-level advisory groups or governing bodies.

    The Collaborative Member Survey is designed to assess specific team processes that contribute to collaboration outcomes at the systems level and will be administered to a subset of CSTI respondents who participate in a NITT-HT grantee's Advisory Team. The Collaborative Member Survey emphasizes aspects of Advisory Teams' climate (participatory decision-making, structure, management of conflict, reflexivity). A maximum of 1,075 respondents (15-25 advisory team members per 43 learning laboratories) are expected to complete the web-based survey once during Year 3 and once during Year 5 of the grant period.

    The Collaborative Self-Assessment assesses collaborative functioning and accomplishments, and specific tasks completed by NITT-HT grantee stakeholders and the leadership team including progress in each of the primary “functions” for the NITT-HT grantees (i.e., specific, discrete achievements or steps toward strategic and fiscal planning, expansion of services, early identification outreach, and reduction of barriers to access). The web-based Collaborative Self-Assessment Survey will be completed by one advisory team member per learning laboratory (n = 43) once in Year 3 and once in Year 5 of the grant period.

    The Project Director Web Survey will collect information on planning, coordination, leadership processes, fiscal planning, and sustainability. The brief Project Director Web Survey will be completed by all grantee project directors (n = 17) once during each of Years 2, 3, and 4 of the grant period. The web survey includes prompts designed to assist the project director in gathering and recalling information to be discussed during the subsequent Project Director Telephone Interview. Upon completion of the web survey, the project director will be asked to schedule a telephone interview, which will focus on gathering more in depth information to complement information gathered via the web survey. The Project Director Telephone Interview includes information on state/local implementation, fiscal planning, coordination and organizational challenges, workforce development, quality assurance procedures, sustainability planning, and leadership and political issues. The telephone interview will also be completed by all grantee project directors (n = 17) once during each of Years 2, 3, and 4 of the grant period. The web survey and telephone interview are slightly different at each time point to reflect varying annual changes in program implementation emphasis.

    The Core Staff Web Survey will be administered to core NITT-HT staff to assess characteristics of person-centered practice and barriers to this practice. “Core staff” are defined as staff members serving as primary providers of planning, case management and coordination services to youth/young adults (“life coaches,” “transition facilitators,” or “transition specialists”). A maximum of 430 core staff (no more than 10 core staff per 43 learning laboratories) are expected to complete the Core Staff Survey once during the grant period.

    In the Multi-Media Project, youth/young adults will be invited to voluntarily provide information about their experiences working with or being served by NITT-HT grantee communities using multi-media outlets. Youth/young adult involvement is a priority both for the NITT-HT national evaluation and for NITT-HT grantees. Consequently, it will be important to offer youth/young adults opportunities to participate in national evaluation activities in developmentally-appropriate and engaging ways. These outlets could include videos, photos, blogs, or poems (at the choice of the participating youth/young adult). Youth/young adults will be given informational probes (e.g., what keeps you involved in NITT-HT activities?) in grantee Years 2, 3, and 4; an estimated 510 youth/young adults (30 youth/young adults per 17 grantees) will participate in the Multi-Media Project.

    The Supplemental Youth and Youth Adult Interview (SYAI) will assess key client-level outcomes of interest for the NITT-HT program, including: School/home/daily living functioning, emotional/behavioral health, vocation and education status, housing stability, criminal or juvenile justice involvement, psychotic symptoms, substance use/abuse, trauma symptoms, victimization experiences and propensity to commit violent acts. In addition to primary outcomes of interest, the SYAI also assesses intermediate outcomes thought to be critical in influencing change in behavioral health and functioning, including: Self-efficacy (mental health, school, career and social), and perceptions of social support, person-centered care, and service alliance. The SYAI includes standardized instruments as well as project-developed items and does not duplicate the client-level data collection required separately by SAMHSA (OMB No. 0930-0346). The SYAI will be conducted with 90 service recipient youth/young adults per NITT-HT grantee (n = 17), for a total of 1,530 youth/young adults, at program enrollment (Baseline) and 12- and 24-months after enrollment. These 90 cases will be evenly distributed across the grantee's 2-3 learning laboratories. The SYAI is designed for administration as an audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) survey. This mode was selected to offer participating youth/young adults maximum privacy while completing the interview and to present minimal survey administration burden to NITT-HT grantee staff.

    Grantee Visit In-Person Interviews and Focus Group Guides

    All NITT-HT grantees (n = 17) will be visited once during the 5-year grant period. Activities associated with the grantee visit (i.e., a pre-planning inventory, interviews, focus groups, and document review) are described below.

    Prior to the grantee visit, the Services & Supports Inventory will be administered one time by telephone to a representative from each of the NITT-HT grantees (n = 17) to identify specific providers and other stakeholders to participate in the grantee visit. Respondents will also provide information about specific services, especially evidence-based and evidence-informed practices being provided to youth/young adults through NITT-HT associated behavioral health or other professional agencies, and provide a preliminary assessment of the frequency and quality of implementation of the practice(s).

    During the one-time grantee visit, several in-person interviews and two client-oriented focus groups will be conducted with NITT-HT program staff. The Core Staff In-Person Interview will be conducted with core staff members (i.e., “transitions specialists,” “transition facilitators,” or “life coaches”) to examine their experiences providing person-centered planning services to youth/young adults served within the NITT-HT grantee communities and ask about successes and challenges in creating and implementing youth/young adult service plans. A total of 215 core staff (five core staff per 43 learning laboratories) are expected to participate.

    The Youth Coordinator In-Person Interview will be conducted with three staff members (one youth coordinator and up to two peer workers) to elicit staff experiences working with the NITT-HT grantee with a focus on the Youth Coordinator functions including participation in planning and coordination, outreach, mentoring, and other activities. A total of 129 staff members (three per 43 learning laboratories) are expected to participate.

    The Provider In-Person Interview will be conducted with individuals who provide behavioral health services/treatment directly to youth/youth adults served within the NITT-HT community, other than the transition facilitators. These individuals will likely come from NITT-HT partner organizations. Interviews will focus on two areas: (1) Perceptions of organizational support by the collaborative, and (2) implementation of evidence-based practices (e.g., general attitudes, types of practices being used, implementation supports). A total of 85 key provider informants (five key providers per 17 grantees) are expected to participate.

    The Stakeholder In-Person Interview will be conducted with other key stakeholders (e.g., board members for agencies, leaders or liaisons for advocacy groups, leaders or advocates with religious or charitable organizations), as identified by grantee leadership. The interview will elicit experiences contributing to systems development, including history of involvement, their specific contributions to the systems development effort, and strategies, barriers and facilitators to making these contributions. A total of 51 community stakeholders (3 stakeholders per 17 grantees) are expected to participate.

    Two Young Adult Focus Groups will be conducted during the grantee visit—one for youth/young adults directly involved in NITT-HT system change efforts, and one for youth/young adults who are recipients of NITT-HT services. The focus groups are designed to elicit perceptions based on youth/young adult lived experience about resources to support successful youth/young adult transition at NITT-HT sites, whether practices are well aligned to address needs and cultivate resources, and ideas about how to build on these achievements in the future. An information form will be completed by each participant to gather general background information (e.g., demographics, extent of experience with the mental health system and grantee community). A total of 860 youth/young adult participants (20 participants per 43 learning laboratories) are expected to participate.

    Two Family/Adult Ally Focus Groups will be conducted during the grantee visit—one focused at the client-level (for family members of youth/young adults service recipients), and one focused at the systems level (for family members involved in NITT-HT grantee planning and systems change efforts). The focus groups will gather information about family member perceived needs and resources to support youth/young adults at the NITT-HT sites. An information form will be completed by each participant to gather general background information (e.g., demographics, extent of experience with the mental health system and grantee community). A total of 860 family/adult allies (20 participants per 43 learning laboratories) are expected to participate.

    Grantee Visit Document Review. Files or charts of a subset of youth/young adults participating in the SYAI will be reviewed during the grantee visit. This document review will be designed to ascertain types of standard documentation routinely completed for youth/young adult clients served as well as the consistency of completion of these documents. Information extracted from client charts will be programmatic only; there will be no identifying or personal information extracted from these client charts.

    Annualized Burden Hours for the NITT-Healthy Transitions Evaluation Instrument/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Community Support for Transition Inventory 1,075 1 1,075 0.4 430 State Support for Transition Inventory 425 1 425 0.32 136 Collaborative Member Survey 1,075 1 1,075 0.25 269 Collaborative Self-Assessment Survey 43 1 43 0.83 36 Project Director Web Survey 17 1 17 0.33 6 Project Director Telephone Interview 17 1 17 1.5 26 Core Staff Web Survey 430 1 430 0.33 142 Grantee Visits: Services & Supports Inventory 17 1 17 0.67 11 Core Staff In-Person Interview 215 1 215 0.33 71 Youth Coordinator In-Person Interview 129 1 129 1 129 Provider In-Person Interview 85 1 85 0.75 64 Stakeholder In-Person Interview 51 1 51 0.75 38 Young Adult Focus Group 860 1 860 1.75 1,505 Family/Adult Ally Focus Group 860 1 860 1.75 1,505 Document Review 43 1 43 0.25 11 Supplemental Youth & Young Adult Interview 1,530 1 1,530 0.67 1,025 Multi-Media Project Young Adult Probes 510 1 510 0.33 168 Total * 5,522 7,382 5,572 * This is an unduplicated count of total respondents.

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 or email her a copy at [email protected] Written comments should be received by January 11, 2016.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28558 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act of 2000 Approval of Navajo Nation Regulations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 16, 2014, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Navajo Nation General Leasing Regulations under the Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act of 2000. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into leases without BIA approval.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cynthia Morales, Office of Trust Services—Division of Realty, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Telephone (202) 768-4166; Email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary of the Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act of 2000

    The Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act authorizes the Nation to issue leases for purposes authorized under 25 U.S.C. 415(a) without the approval of the Secretary, provided the lease is executed under tribal regulations approved by the Secretary. Congress enacted the Leasing Act in 2000, to “establish a streamlined process for the Navajo Nation to lease trust lands without having the approval of the Secretary of the Interior for individual leases,” and “[t]o maintain, strengthen, and protect the Navajo Nation's leasing power over Navajo trust lands.” Public Law 106-568 § 1202, 114 Stat. 2933 (Dec. 27, 2000). See also S. Rpt. 106-511 (Oct. 31, 2000). The Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act requires the Secretary to approve tribal regulations if the tribal regulations are consistent with the Department's leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the tribal regulations for the Navajo Nation.

    II. Federal Preemption of State and Local Taxes

    The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72,440, 72,447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act.

    Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the revised leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162, Federal courts have applied a balancing test to determine whether State and local taxation of non-Indians on the reservation is preempted. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker balancing test, which is conducted against a backdrop of “traditional notions of Indian self-government,” requires a particularized examination of the relevant State, Federal, and tribal interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker analysis from the preamble to the surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at 72,447-48, as supplemented by the analysis below.

    The strong Federal and tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to tribal leasing regulations approved under the Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act. The Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act was intended to “revitalize the distressed Navajo Reservation by promoting political self-determination, and encouraging economic self-sufficiency, including economic development that increases productivity and the standard of living for members of the Navajo Nation.” Public Law 106-568 § 1202, 114 Stat. 2933 (Dec. 27, 2000). Moreover, the Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act was the model for the HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership) Act of 2012, for which Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012).

    Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial tribal interests in effective tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2043 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (determining that “[a] key goal of the Federal Government is to render Tribes more self-sufficient, and better positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on Federal funding”). The additional costs of State and local taxation have a chilling effect on potential lessees, as well as on a tribe that, as a result, might refrain from exercising its own sovereign right to impose a tribal tax to support its infrastructure needs. See id. at 2043-44 (finding that State and local taxes greatly discourage tribes from raising tax revenue from the same sources because the imposition of double taxation would impede tribal economic growth).

    Just like BIA's surface leasing regulations, tribal regulations under the Navajo Nation Trust Leasing Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing. Furthermore, the Federal government remains involved in the tribal land leasing process by approving the tribal leasing regulations in the first instance. The Secretary also retains authority to take “all appropriate actions . . . in furtherance of the trust obligation of the United States to the Navajo Nation” and necessary actions remedy violations of tribal regulations, including cancelling the lease or rescinding approval of the tribal regulations and reassuming lease approval responsibilities. 25 U.S.C. 415(e). Moreover, the Secretary continues to review, approve, and monitor individual Indian land leases and other types of leases not covered under the tribal regulations according to the Part 162 regulations.

    Accordingly, the Federal and tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Navajo Nation.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28476 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration [LLNM930000 L51010000.ER0000 LVRWG14G0790 14XL5017AP] Notice of Availability of the Southline Transmission Line Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0474), New Mexico and Arizona AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior; Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Western Area Power Administration (Western) have prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Southline Transmission Line Project (Project), and by this notice are announcing its availability.

    DATES:

    Neither the BLM nor Western will issue a final decision on the proposed Project for a minimum of 30 days after the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Southline Transmission Line Project Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies as well as to other stakeholders. Copies of the Final EIS are available for public inspection at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005; the BLM New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508; the BLM Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004; the BLM Safford Field Office, 711 14th Avenue, Safford, Arizona 85546; and the BLM Tucson Field Office, 3201 East Universal Way, Tucson, Arizona 85756. The Final EIS and supporting documents are available electronically on the Project Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nm/southline.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Mackiewicz, PMP, BLM Senior National Project Manager; telephone (435) 636-3616; email: [email protected] For information about Western's involvement, contact Mark Wieringa, Western NEPA Document Manager; telephone (720) 962-7448; email: [email protected] For general information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) NEPA review procedures or on the status of a NEPA review, contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, telephone (202) 586-4600 or toll free at (800) 472-2756, fax (202) 586-7031, email [email protected]

    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Southline Transmission, LLC (Southline), the proponent, has filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM pursuant to Title V of FLPMA, proposing to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a high-voltage, alternating current electric transmission line. The BLM and Western agreed to be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b). Western is a power-marketing agency within the DOE and is also a participant in the proposed Project with Southline.

    The proposed Project would consist of two sections. The first section would entail construction of approximately 240 miles of new double-circuit 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in a 200-foot ROW between the Afton Substation, south of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Apache Substation, south of Willcox, Arizona (Afton-Apache or New Build Section). The second section would entail the upgrade of approximately 120 miles of Western's existing Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kV transmission line in a 100-foot existing ROW to a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line in a 100 to 150-foot ROW (Apache-Saguaro or Upgrade Section). The Upgrade Section would originate at the Apache Substation and terminate at the Saguaro Substation northwest of Tucson, Arizona. Both new permanent ROWs and temporary construction ROWs would be required in the New Build Section and in some portions of the Upgrade Section for the transmission line, access roads, and other permanent and temporary Project components.

    The proposed Project would involve the interconnection with and expansion and upgrade of 14 existing substations in southern Arizona and New Mexico, as well as the potential construction of a new 345-kV substation facility in New Mexico. The Project would also include installation of a fiber optic network communications system. Fee ownership would only be considered for substations or substation expansions; all other land rights acquired on non-federal lands would be through easements or leases. The New Build Section (Afton-Apache) would include construction and operation of:

    • 205 miles of 345-kV double-circuit electric transmission line as well as associated roads and ancillary facilities in New Mexico and Arizona with a planned bidirectional capacity of up to 1,000 MW. This section is defined by endpoints at the existing Afton Substation, south of Las Cruces in Doña Ana County, New Mexico, and Western's existing Apache Substation, south of Willcox in Cochise County, Arizona;

    • 5 miles of 345-kV single-circuit electric transmission line between the existing Afton Substation and the existing Luna-Diablo 345-kV transmission line;

    • 30 miles of 345-kV double-circuit electric transmission line between New Mexico State Route 9 and Interstate 10 east of Deming in Luna County, New Mexico, to provide access for potential renewable energy generation sources in southern New Mexico. This segment of the proposed Project is included in the analysis, however, development of this segment would be determined at a later date;

    • One potential new substation on approximately 25 acres of land in Luna County, New Mexico (proposed Midpoint Substation), to provide an intermediate connection point for future interconnection requests; and

    The Upgrade Section (Apache-Saguaro) would include:

    • Replacing 120 miles of Western's existing Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kV single-circuit electric wood-pole H-frame transmission lines with a 230-kV double-circuit electric steel-pole transmission line. This section is defined by endpoints at the existing Apache Substation, south of Willcox in Cochise County, Arizona, and the existing Saguaro Substation, northwest of Tucson in Pima County, Arizona;

    • 2 miles of new build double-circuit 230-kV electric transmission line to interconnect with the existing Tucson Electric Power Company Vail Substation, located southeast of Tucson and just north of the existing 115-kV Tucson-Apache line; and

    • Interconnection with and upgrade of 12 existing substations along Western's existing Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kV lines in Arizona. Substation expansions would be required for installation of new communications equipment, new 230-kV bays with transformers, breakers, switches, and ancillary equipment. In some cases expansion may require a separate yard.

    Environmental and social concerns and issues were identified through both the initial public scoping and Draft EIS comment periods. The issues addressed in the Final EIS that shaped the Project's scope and alternatives include, but are not limited to:

    • Air and climate • Biological resources • Cultural resources • Health and safety • Noise • Land use (including farmlands and military operations) • Recreation • Socioeconomics and environmental justice • Special designations • Wilderness characteristics units • Trails • Visual • Transportation

    In addition to the Proponent Preferred Action, Southline also submitted the Proponent Alternative route for the New Build Section of the proposed Project, both of which were the product of extensive stakeholder outreach. In addition to the Proponent Preferred Action, the Proponent Alternative and the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Western are considering local alternatives and route variations. To simplify the analysis of alternatives, the Project area has been divided into four major route groups: (1) Afton Substation to Hidalgo Substation (New Build Section); (2) Hidalgo Substation to Apache Substation (New Build Section); (3) Apache Substation to Pantano Substation (Upgrade Section); and (4) Pantano Substation to Saguaro Substation (Upgrade Section).

    Route Group 1: Afton to Hidalgo (New Build Section). This route group includes two sub-routes and five local alternatives. Both sub-routes are approximately 140 miles long. Local alternatives range between approximately 9 and 43 miles long. The route group crosses portions of Doña Ana, Grant, and Hidalgo counties in New Mexico. Three of the four local alternatives were identified by Southline and represent routing options developed to avoid localized environmental conflicts along the international border. The fourth local alternative provides a co-location option with the proposed SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project.

    Route Group 2: Hidalgo to Apache (New Build Section). This route group includes two sub-routes, four route variations and eight local alternatives. Both sub-routes are approximately 95 miles long. Route variations and local alternatives range between approximately 1 and 54 miles long. The alternatives in this group cross portions of Hidalgo County in New Mexico and portions of Cochise, Greenlee, and Graham counties in Arizona. The four route variations and eight local alternatives were identified by the BLM and Western and represent routing options developed to avoid localized environmental conflicts around Lordsburg and Willcox Playas.

    Route Group 3: Apache to Pantano (Upgrade Section). This route group includes the upgrade of the existing Western 115-kV line between the Apache and Pantano substations; the line measures about 70 miles between these two substations. There is one local alternative identified by Southline that represents routing options designed to avoid residential development in the Benson area. Route Group 3 crosses portions of Cochise and Pima counties in Arizona.

    Route Group 4: Pantano to Saguaro (Upgrade Section). This group includes the upgrade of the existing Western 115-kV line between the Pantano and Saguaro substations; the line measures about 50 miles between these two substations. There are one route variation and ten local alternatives in Route Group 4. The alternatives in this group cross portions of Pima and Pinal counties in Arizona. Nine of the ten local alternatives proposed by the BLM and Western in this route group are options for replacing the portion of the existing Western line that crosses over Tumamoc Hill in Tucson. The route variation and the tenth local alternative are routing options near the Tucson International Airport and Marana Regional Airport, and were proposed by the lead agencies to address potential conflicts with future airport expansion and economic development plans as well as removing the existing line from a dense residential development with encroachments.

    The Final EIS also considers two substation alternatives (Midpoint North and Midpoint South) proposed by Southline; they are options for the location of the proposed Midpoint Substation located within Route Group 1. Both alternative locations would be in Luna County, New Mexico.

    For the New Build Section, the Agency Preferred Alternative consists of a combination of the Proponent-Proposed Action, Proponent Alternative, and agency local alternative segments within Route Groups 1 and 2. The route was selected by the BLM and Western as the Agency Preferred Alternative because it would maximize use of existing and linear ROWs by paralleling existing and proposed infrastructure and transmission lines; eliminate the need for plan amendments through conformance with existing land use plans; minimize impacts to military operations at and near the Willcox Playa; and minimize impacts to sensitive resources. Public and agency comments on the Draft EIS expressed concern that portions of the Agency Preferred Alternative in the New Build Section would parallel the SunZia Southwest Transmission Line project, a project not yet constructed. Additional comments expressed concern about potential avian conflicts along the southeastern side of the Willcox Playa. The Agency Preferred Alternative for the Final EIS takes all comments received on the Draft EIS into consideration and suggests appropriate mitigation to be used to avoid sensitive resources as well as residential and economic development conflicts in the area.

    The Agency Preferred Alternative for the Upgrade Section consists of a combination of Proponent-Proposed Action and local alternatives at Tumamoc Hill and near the Marana Airport within Route Groups 3 and 4. The route was selected because it would maximize the use of the existing ROW and facilities currently used for Western's Saguaro-Tucson and Tucson-Apache 115-kV transmission lines; minimize impacts to sensitive resources at Tumamoc Hill; and minimize impacts to military training operations at the Marana Airport.

    The BLM requires mitigation measures and conservation actions to achieve land use plan goals and objectives. The sequence of mitigation action would be the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate over time, or compensate) identified by the CEQ (40 CFR 1508.20), BLM's Draft Regional Mitigation Manual, section 1794, and as described in the Final EIS. Certain alternatives, if selected, may require compensatory mitigation for those implementation-level activities that result in impacts the agencies cannot adequately avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate over time (i.e., residual impacts).

    The BLM, Western, Southline, and cooperating agencies worked together to develop routes that would conform to existing Federal land use plans. No plan amendments are required for the Upgrade portion of the proposed Project in Arizona or the Agency Preferred Alternative for the New Build Section in New Mexico, as described in the Final EIS.

    The BLM and Western have utilized the NEPA comment period to assist the agencies in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)), as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The agencies have also consulted with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Ongoing Native American tribal consultations will continue to be conducted in accordance with law and policy, and tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets, will be given due consideration. The BLM has also completed, with Western input, formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Based on the environmental analysis in this Final EIS, the BLM will decide whether to authorize the Proponent Preferred Action, Agency Preferred Alternative, alternatives, or any combination thereof on Public Lands. The Administrator will decide whether Western would use its borrowing authority to partially finance and/or hold partial ownership in the resulting transmission facilities and capacity. Western will consider the environmental analysis as the Project Development and Finance Phases are completed, as outlined in the Transmission Infrastructure Program Federal Register Notice of Procedures (79 FR 19065-19077, April 7, 2014)

    Comments on the Draft EIS received from the public and internal agency review were considered, and document revisions were incorporated as appropriate into the Final EIS. Public comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text, but did not result in substantial changes to the proposed Project or the impact analysis between the Draft and Final EIS.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration. Aden Seidlitz, Acting State Director, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28676 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNML00000 L12200000.DF0000 16XL1109AF] Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM), Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The RAC will meet on December 8, 2015, at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico from 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Stevens, BLM Las Cruces District, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005, 575-525-4421. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Las Cruces District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. Planned agenda items include a welcome by the Chair, and presentations and discussions related to the New Mexico Copper Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement; the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Record of Decision and planning process; lands with wilderness characteristics; Restore New Mexico; and grazing permit renewals. A half-hour public comment period, during which the public may address the RAC, will begin at 11:30 a.m. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

    Melanie Barnes, Acting Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28541 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-BSD-COMM-19682; PPWOBSADC0, PPMVSCS1Y.Y00000 (166)] Proposed Information Collection; National Park Service Concessions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service, NPS) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by January 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 2C114, Mail Stop 242, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1024-0029” in the subject line of your comments. You can view the currently approved collection at www.reginfo.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Brian P. Borda, Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20005 (mail), (202) 513-7156 (phone), or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Private businesses under contract to the National Park Service manage food, lodging, tours, whitewater rafting, boating, and many other recreational activities and amenities in more than 100 national parks. These services gross more than $1 billion every year and provide jobs for more than 25,000 people during peak season.

    The regulations at 36 CFR part 51 primarily implement title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-391), which provides legislative authority, policies, and requirements for the solicitation, award, and administration of NPS concession contracts. Following are the information collection requirements associated with soliciting, awarding, and administering NPS concessions. We collect the following information in narrative and form format:

    Proposals

    The public solicitation process begins with the issuance of a prospectus to invite the general public to submit proposals for the contract. The prospectus describes the terms and conditions of the concession contract to be awarded, the procedures to be followed in the selection of the best proposal, and the information that must be provided. Information that we collect includes, but is not limited to:

    • Description of how respondent will conduct operations to minimize disturbance to wildlife; protect park resources; and provide visitors with a high quality, safe, and enjoyable visitor experience.

    • Organizational structure and history and experience with similar operations.

    • Details on violations or infractions and how they were handled.

    • Financial information and demonstration that the respondent has a credible, proven track record of meeting obligations.

    Amendments

    Amendments to proposals may be submitted in accordance with 36 CFR 51.15 and 51.32.

    Appeals

    Regulations at 36 CFR 51.47 state that any person may appeal a determination that a concessioner is not a preferred offeror for the purposes of a right of preference in renewal. The appeal must specify the grounds for the appeal.

    Request To Construct a Capital Improvement

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.54, a request for approval to construct a capital improvement must include appropriate plans and specifications for the capital improvement. The request must also include an estimate of the total construction cost of the capital improvement.

    Construction Report

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.55, a concessioner obtaining a leasehold surrender interest must submit a construction report to the NPS. The construction report must be supported by actual invoices of the capital improvement's construction cost together with, if requested by the NPS, a written certification from a certified public accountant (CPA).

    Application To Sell or Transfer Concession Operation

    36 CFR part 51, subpart J, provides that a concessioner must obtain NPS approval to assign, sell, convey, grant, contract for, or otherwise transfer: Any concession contract; any rights to operate under or manage the performance of a concession contract as a subconcessioner or otherwise; any controlling interest in a concessioner or concession contract; or any leasehold surrender interest or possessory interest obtained under a concession contract. The amount and type of information to be submitted varies with the type and complexity of the proposed transaction. Information includes, but is not limited to:

    • Instruments proposed to implement the transaction.

    • Opinion of counsel that the proposed transaction is lawful under all applicable Federal and State laws.

    • Narrative description of the proposed transaction.

    • Statement as to the existence and nature of any litigation relating to the proposed transaction.

    • Description of the management qualifications, financial background, and financing and operational plans of any proposed transferee.

    • Description of all financial aspects of the proposed transaction.

    • Prospective financial statements (proformas).

    • Schedule that allocates in detail the purchase price (or, in the case of a transaction other than an asset purchase, the valuation) of all assets assigned or encumbered. In addition, the applicant must provide a description of the basis for all allocations and ownership of all assets.

    Annual Financial Statements

    We currently use NPS Forms 10-356 and 10-356A to collect annual financial reports. These forms are an accumulation of various financial statements commonly used by industry for reporting in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The information provides a comprehensive view of the concessioner's financial situation at the end of the fiscal year and the concessioner's activity over the preceding year. We are proposing revisions to the currently approved NPS Form 10-356 and NPS Form 10-356A. You can view the currently approved forms at www.reginfo.gov. We have made minor formatting adjustments to all schedules. The other changes are necessary to improve the clarity of the forms and lessen the total time to complete the forms. There are many different contractual provisions in concession contracts and the changes may affect some concessioners more than others. In addition, we will simplify the submission process, which will significantly reduce the time required to complete and submit an Annual Financial Report.

    Revisions to NPS Form 10-356

    • Modifying Schedules D-PI and D-LSI and adding Schedule D-1. These changes are necessary to accommodate accounting rule changes in the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 853. Some concession contracts have provisions for possessory interest and leasehold surrender interest, and ASC Topic 853 changes the accounting treatment of these assets.

    • Deleting Schedules N and O due to the small number of concessioners that must complete them. These schedules will be included in a proposed new form, NPS Form 10-356B (see below).

    • Deleting Schedule L so that all notes and supplemental text will be captured on Schedule F.

    • Replacing high-season and low-season collection fields on Schedule M with annual collection fields.

    • Adding “other” data fields on many schedules.

    Revisions to NPS Form 10-356A

    • Revising indirect operating expenses collection fields on Schedule B to match the indirect operating expenses collection fields on NPS Form 10-356 Schedule I.

    • Replacing high-season and low-season collection fields on Schedule M with annual collection fields.

    • Adding “other” data fields on many schedules.

    NPS Form 10-356B

    We are proposing a new NPS Form 10-356B, which will include:

    • Supplemental Schedules N and O (currently on NPS Form 10-356)

    • Supplemental Schedule R. This new schedule is necessary to accurately track utility add-ons for the small number of concessioners that have an approved rate add-on in their contract. Concessioners choose how to account for the approved rate add-on in their annual financial report on NPS Forms 10-356 or 10-356A according to best industry accounting practices. However, the currently approved forms do not include any schedules or collection areas that show the amount of revenue collected in excess of approved rates or the cost of utilities provided by the National Park Service to the concessioner. This information is necessary to ensure that visitors are only charged the approved rate add-on amount and to ensure that we have a comprehensive view of the concessioner's financial situation as it relates to the regulations at 36 CFR part 51.

    Recordkeeping

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.98, a concessioner (and any subconcessioner) must keep and make available to NPS, records for the term of the concession contract and for 5 years after the termination or expiration of the concession contract.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-0029.

    Title: National Park Service Concessions, 36 CFR 51.

    Service Form Numbers: 10-356, 10-356A, 10-356B.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion for proposals, amendments, and appeals; annually for financial reports; and ongoing for recordkeeping.

    Estimated Nonhour Cost Burden: $425,000.

    Activity Number of
  • annual
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total annual burden hours *
    Proposals—large concessions 30 240 7,200 Proposals—small concessions 60 80 4,800 Amendments 1 1 1 Appeals 1 .5 1 Request To Construct a Capital Improvement—large projects 31 16 496 Request To Construct a Capital Improvement—small projects 89 8 712 Construction Report—large projects 31 56 1,736 Construction Report—small projects 89 24 2,136 Application to Sell/Transfer Concession Operation 20 80 1,600 Annual Financial Report—NPS Form 10-356 150 15 2,250 Annual Financial Report—NPS Form 10-356A 350 4 1,400 Annual Financial Report—NPS Form 10-356B 30 2 60 Recordkeeping—large concessions 150 800 120,000 Recordkeeping—small concessions 350 50 17,500 Totals 1,382 159,892 * rounded
    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28546 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-7EH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Pistoia Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 9, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Ricardo Grinberg-Funes (individual member), Leonia, NJ; Gaia Paolini Ltd., Bridge, UNITED KINGDOM; and Savdion Limited, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM, have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Deloitte Consulting LLP, New York, NY, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 15, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51606).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28616 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cooperative Research Group on Ros-Industrial Americas

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 16, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas (“RIC-Americas”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; and Stratasys, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN, have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Shanghai Shou-Elin Robot Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, People's Republic of China, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 2014, (79 FR 32999).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 22, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 25, 2015 (80 FR 36578).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28613 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 13, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. (“IMS Global”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Echo360, Inc., Reston, VA; eLumen, Minneapolis, MN; Intel Education, Leixlip, County Kildare IRELAND; Public Consulting Group, Boston, MA; Schoology, New York, NY; and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, K12, Herndon, VA; Kaywon University, Gyeonnggi-do REPUBLIC OF KOREA; and Carson Dellosa Publishing, Greensboro, NC, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 20, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51605).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28617 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Foreign Claims Settlement Commission [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 10-15] Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:

    Thursday, November 19, 2015: 10 a.m.—Oral hearings on Objection to Commission's Proposed Decisions in Claim Nos. LIB-III-025 and LIB-III-019.

    Status: Open.

    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

    Brian M. Simkin, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28768 Filed 11-6-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Docket No. ODAG 156] Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting. Request for Public Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Commission on Forensic Science will hold meeting [insert number] at the time and location listed below.

    DATES:

    (1) Public Hearing.—The meeting will be held on December 7, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and December 8, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    (2) Written Public Comment.—Written public comment regarding National Commission on Forensic Science meeting materials can be submitted through www.regulations.gov starting on November [23], 2015. Any comments should be posted to regulations.gov no later than December [22], 2015.

    Location: House of Sweden: 2900 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew J. Bruck, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and Designated Federal Official, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, by email at [email protected] by phone at (202) 305-3481.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: December 7, 2015, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. and December 8, 2015, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.—Open Meeting: The public will have the opportunity to make oral comments beginning at 5 p.m. each day.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, the meeting scheduled for December 7, 2015, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. and December 8, 2015, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the House of Sweden is open to the public and webcast. Seating is limited and pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Media representatives are also encouraged to register in advance.

    Written Comments: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the stated agenda and meeting material. Meeting material, including work products will be made available on the Commission's Web site: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs.

    Oral Comments: In addition to written statements, members of the public may present oral comments at 5 p.m. on December 7 and 8, 2015. Those individuals interested in making oral comments should indicate their intent through the on-line registration form and time will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Time allotted for an individual's comment period will be limited to no more than 3 minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled public comment periods, written comments can be submitted through www.regulations.gov in lieu of oral comments.

    Registration: Individuals and entities who wish to attend the public meeting are encouraged to register for the meeting. All persons must register on-line by clicking the registration link found at: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/meetings#s8. Online registration for the meeting must be completed on or before 5:00 p.m. (EST) November 30, 2015.

    Additional Information: The Department of Justice welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations, please indicate your requirements on the online registration form.

    Dated: November 3, 2015. Andrew J. Bruck, Designated Federal Official, National Commission on Forensic Science.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28599 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0016] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government Entities AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Andrew Ashton, NFA Branch Specialist, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25402, at 304-616-4501 [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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.

    Overview of this information collection 1140-0016:

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government Entities.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department? sponsoring the collection:

    Form number (if applicable): ATF F 10 (5320.10).

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: State Local or Tribal Governments.

    Other (if applicable): None.

    Abstract: Primary: State Local or Tribal Governments. Other: None. The form is required to be submitted by State and local government entities wishing to register an abandoned or seized and previously unregistered National Firearms Act weapon. The form is required whenever application for such a registration is made.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 1909 respondents will take 30 minutes to complete the survey.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 955 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28502 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Extension to Public Comment Period for Two Consent Decrees Under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act

    On September 30, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged two proposed Consent Decrees with two United States District Courts, the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of Louisiana, in lawsuits both entitled United States v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-cv-02286 in the Middle District of Florida and Civil Action No. 15-cv-04889 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The proposed Consent Decrees will resolve all of the claims of the United States against Mosaic under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at Mosaic's facilities in Bartow, Lithia, Mulberry and Riverview, Florida and in St. James and Uncle Sam, Louisiana. They also resolve, respectively, the parallel claims of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) against Mosaic. The alleged violations in this case stem from storage and disposal of waste from the production of phosphoric and sulfuric acids, key components of fertilizers, at Mosaic's facilities.

    The two consent decrees require Mosaic to spend approximately $170 million on projects to ensure the proper treatment, storage, and disposal of its hazardous waste and reduce the environmental impact of its manufacturing and waste management programs. Mosaic also will establish a $630 million trust fund—which will be invested to grow until it reaches full funding of $1.8 billion—the cost to cover phosphogypsum stack closure, including the treatment of hazardous process wastewater, at four of its operating facilities, and long-term care of all of its Florida and Louisiana facilities. The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Fertilizer's parent company, will provide financial guarantees for this work, and the settlement also requires Mosaic Fertilizer to submit a $50 million letter of credit. Mosaic also will pay a $5 million civil penalty to the United States and $1.55 million to Louisiana and $1.45 million to Florida, who are state co-plaintiffs in these cases. In addition, Mosaic will spend $2.2 million on two local environmental projects: A $1.2 million environmental project in Florida to mitigate and prevent certain potential environmental impacts associated with an orphaned industrial property located in Mulberry, Florida; and a $1 million project in Louisiana to fund studies regarding statewide water quality issues and the development of watershed nutrient management plans to be utilized by beef cattle, dairy and poultry producers.

    The prior notice of lodging of the Consent Decrees, published on October 7, 2015, stated that the Department of Justice would receive comments concerning the settlement until November 7, 2015. Having received a request for an extension of the initial comment period and given the public interest in this settlement, the United States is extending the comment period for an additional thirty (30) Days, until December 7, 2015.

    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of sixty (60) days from October 7, 2015, any comments relating to the proposed Consent Decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-cv-02286 in the Middle District of Florida and Civil Action No. 15-cv-04889 in the Eastern District of Louisiana, with D.J. Ref. No. 90-7-1-08388. All comments must be submitted no later than December 7, 2015. Comments may be submitted by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to:

    By email: [email protected]

    By mail: Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decrees may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.

    We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decrees upon written request and payment of reproduction costs (25 cents per page). Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. If you would like a copy of the Consent Decree lodged with the Middle District of Florida, please enclose a check or money order, payable to the United States Treasury, for $162.50 (or $20.50 for a paper copy without the exhibits). If you would like a copy of the Consent Decree lodged with the Eastern District of Louisiana, the cost is $124.50 (or $21.25 for a paper copy without the exhibits). If you would like a copy of both Consent Decrees, the cost is $287.00 (or $41.75 for paper copies without the exhibits).

    Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28565 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    On November 3, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Asarco LLC, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-02206-JZB.

    The United States filed this civil enforcement action under the federal Clean Air Act. The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the regulations that govern emissions from the defendant's copper smelting facility in Hayden, Arizona. The proposed consent decree resolves the claims alleged in the complaint and requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief that will significantly reduce emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and several hazardous air pollutants including lead and arsenic at its facility, and to pay a civil penalty of $4.5 million. Additionally, the proposed consent decree requires the defendant to spend at least $8 million on environmental mitigation projects that will benefit communities adversely affected by pollution from its facility. The defendant will also perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) under the proposed consent decree. For the SEP, the defendant will retire an old diesel switch locomotive and replace it with a low emission diesel-electric switch locomotive at an estimated cost of $1 million, which will result in reduced nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and greenhouse gas emissions.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Asarco LLC, D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-10459. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By e-mail [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the proposed consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $32.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-28479 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Education and Human Resources Program Monitoring Clearance AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to renew this collection. In accordance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.

    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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; 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.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received by January 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 295, Arlington, VA 22030, or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne Plimpton at (703) 292-7556 or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Education and Human Resources Program Monitoring Clearance.

    OMB Approval Number: 3145-0226.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 2/29/2016.

    Type of Request: Intent to seek renewal of an information collection.

    Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests reclearance of program accountability data collections that describe and track the impact of NSF funding that focuses on the Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and STEM workforce. NSF funds grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to colleges, universities, and other eligible institutions, and provides graduate research fellowships to individuals in all parts of the United States and internationally.

    The Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), a unit within NSF, promotes rigor and vitality within the Nation's STEM education enterprise to further the development of the 21st century's STEM workforce and public scientific literacy. EHR does this through diverse projects and programs that support research, extension, outreach, and hands-on activities that service STEM learning and research at all institutional (e.g., pre-school through postdoctoral) levels in formal and informal settings; and individuals of all ages (birth and beyond). EHR also focuses on broadening participation in STEM learning and careers among United States citizens, permanent residents, and nationals, particularly those individuals traditionally underemployed in the STEM research workforce, including but not limited to women, persons with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities.

    The scope of this information collection request will primarily cover descriptive information gathered from education and training (E&T) projects that are funded by NSF. NSF will primarily use the data from this collection for program planning, management, and audit purposes to respond to queries from the Congress, the public, NSF's external merit reviewers who serve as advisors, including Committees of Visitors (COVs), the NSF's Office of the Inspector General, and as a basis for either internal or third-party evaluations of individual programs.

    The collections will generally include three categories of descriptive data: (1) Staff and project participants (data that are also necessary to determine individual-level treatment and control groups for future third-party study or for internal evaluation); (2) project implementation characteristics (also necessary for future use to identify well-matched comparison groups); and (3) project outputs (necessary to measure baseline for pre- and post- NSF-funding-level impacts).

    Use of the Information: This information is required for effective administration, communication, program and project monitoring and evaluation, and for measuring attainment of NSF's program, project, and strategic goals, and as identified by the President's Accountability in Government Initiative; GPRA, and the NSF's Strategic Plan. The Foundation's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan may be found at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14043/nsf14043.pdf.

    Since this collection will primarily be used for accountability and evaluation purpos