Federal Register Vol. 80, No.227,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 227 (November 25, 2015)

Page Range73631-73942
FR Document

80_FR_227
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 73941 - Thanksgiving Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 73939 - National Family Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 73633 - Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in BurundiPDF
80 FR 73785 - Final Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria for Transplantation of Organs Infected With HIVPDF
80 FR 73766 - Government in the Sunshine Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 73631 - National Child's Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 73871 - Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection Request: 391.41 CMV Driver Medication FormPDF
80 FR 73679 - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human SubjectsPDF
80 FR 73807 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Standard Grant Application FormsPDF
80 FR 73696 - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on FirstNet's Incumbent Relocation ProposalPDF
80 FR 73756 - Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee; Notification of Public Meeting and Public CommentPDF
80 FR 73755 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Final Determinations in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin IslandsPDF
80 FR 73758 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC)PDF
80 FR 73700 - Grant of Authority; Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone Under the Alternative Site Framework Western KentuckyPDF
80 FR 73701 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 141-Rochester, New York, Termination of Review of Notification of Proposed Production Activity American Tactical Imports (Deconstruction of Firearms), Rochester, New YorkPDF
80 FR 73868 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice of Acceptance of a Country Practices Petition on Thailand; Notice of Schedule for Public Comments and a Hearing on Certain Country Practice ReviewsPDF
80 FR 73866 - Homeland Security Advisory Council-New TaskingPDF
80 FR 73865 - Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International LawPDF
80 FR 73866 - Removal of Sanctions on Person on Whom Sanctions Have Been Imposed Under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 73769 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 73865 - Modification of Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act Measures Against a Russian EntityPDF
80 FR 73692 - Anchorage Regulations; Port of New YorkPDF
80 FR 73867 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment in BurmaPDF
80 FR 73835 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Clean Water ActPDF
80 FR 73742 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 73770 - Determination That TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (Acetaminophen With Codeine Phosphate) Oral Tablets, 325 Milligrams/7.5 Milligrams, 325 Milligrams/15 Milligrams, 325 Milligrams/30 Milligrams, and 325 Milligrams/60 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
80 FR 73779 - Federal Financial Participation in State Assistance Expenditures; Federal Matching Shares for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and Aid to Needy Aged, Blind, or Disabled Persons for October 1, 2016 Through September 30, 2017PDF
80 FR 73804 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 73731 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Numbers 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088, Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap ParticipantsPDF
80 FR 73732 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0078, Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing BrokersPDF
80 FR 73740 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 73669 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 73782 - Medicare Program; Administrative Law Judge Hearing Program for Medicare Claim and Entitlement Appeals; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-July Through September 2015PDF
80 FR 73670 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 73734 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73798 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 73836 - Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress; MeetingPDF
80 FR 73876 - Central Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rolla, Rolla, Missouri; Approval of Conversion Application; OCC Charter Number 705710PDF
80 FR 73805 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 73875 - Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyPDF
80 FR 73759 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
80 FR 73797 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 73839 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Open Committee MeetingsPDF
80 FR 73836 - Office of Government Information Services; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 73836 - Notice of Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance Review BoardsPDF
80 FR 73814 - Extension of Public Comment Period and Schedule of Public Scoping Meetings and Public Meetings for the Proposed Withdrawal of Sagebrush Focal Areas in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and an Associated Environmental Impact Statement; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 73875 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel VAGO; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 73813 - Call for Nominations for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee, UtahPDF
80 FR 73837 - Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive ServicePDF
80 FR 73744 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 73837 - License Renewal for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 73640 - Onions Grown in South Texas; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 73812 - Second Call for Nominations for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 73642 - Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 73802 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 73760 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73784 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 73644 - Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 73816 - 2015 Third Call for Nominations for Coeur d'Alene Resource Advisory Committee, IdahoPDF
80 FR 73689 - Anchorage Regulations; Connecticut River, Old Saybrook, CTPDF
80 FR 73814 - Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Call for Nominees To Complete Elected Official TermPDF
80 FR 73814 - Call for Nominations for Central California Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 73871 - Environmental Impact Statement: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, IllinoisPDF
80 FR 73808 - Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species PermitsPDF
80 FR 73759 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 73838 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 73740 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73700 - Foreign-Trade Zone 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Reorganization (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
80 FR 73810 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Receipt of Application for an Incidental Take Permit; Availability of Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and Associated Documents; Polk County, FLPDF
80 FR 73815 - Notice of Public Meeting Postponement, BLM Colorado Northwest Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 73839 - Notice of Wireless Telecommunications SitePDF
80 FR 73774 - Public Meeting on Patient-Focused Drug Development for PsoriasisPDF
80 FR 73771 - Certification Process for Designated Medical Gases; Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 73708 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 73698 - Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 73658 - Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural AreaPDF
80 FR 73716 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and The People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 73726 - Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From ThailandPDF
80 FR 73739 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 73815 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Resource Management Plan for the California Desert Conservation Area and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment for the Plan Amendment and the Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 73678 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: NASA Capitalization Threshold (NFS Case 2015-N004)PDF
80 FR 73834 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Collection of Laboratory Analysis Data on Drug Samples Tested by Non-Federal (State and Local Government) Crime LaboratoriesPDF
80 FR 73730 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Elliot Bay Seawall Project in Seattle, WashingtonPDF
80 FR 73735 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn MowersPDF
80 FR 73738 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys and Children's ArticlesPDF
80 FR 73736 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station AntennasPDF
80 FR 73737 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Flammability Standards for Children's SleepwearPDF
80 FR 73874 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73755 - Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Informal Settlement ConferencePDF
80 FR 73683 - Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous GenerationPDF
80 FR 73647 - Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability StandardsPDF
80 FR 73754 - Howard and Mildred Carter, Allen Rae Carter; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 73751 - Great Bear Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 73778 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73778 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73752 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Potomac Electric Power Company; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference CommentsPDF
80 FR 73747 - Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for and Requesting Comments on the Proposed Atlantic Bridge ProjectPDF
80 FR 73751 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 73749 - Combined Notice of Filings #3PDF
80 FR 73753 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 73753 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 73750 - Susan Raymond; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
80 FR 73726 - North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; First Request for Panel ReviewPDF
80 FR 73828 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
80 FR 73811 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report FormPDF
80 FR 73870 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Cape Productions, Inc.PDF
80 FR 73870 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 73776 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73675 - NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap ReportingPDF
80 FR 73704 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
80 FR 73722 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
80 FR 73701 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
80 FR 73784 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 73783 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 73797 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 73796 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 73783 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 73829 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From China and Taiwan; Notice of Commission Determinations To Conduct Full Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 73702 - Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 73833 - William Mikaitis, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 73830 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards WarehousePDF
80 FR 73729 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments from the Public Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Korea Free Trade AgreementPDF
80 FR 73702 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments From the Public for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Actions on Imports From KoreaPDF
80 FR 73858 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 6191(b) and Amend FINRA Rule 7440 To Implement the Data Collection Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 73853 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 6191(a) To Implement the Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 73839 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule Change To Trade Expiring MSCI EAFE Index Options Until 3:00 p.m.PDF
80 FR 73849 - Order Granting a Conditional Exemption Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 From the Confirmation Requirements of Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a) for Certain Transactions in Money Market FundsPDF
80 FR 73852 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to the ICC Rule Enforcement Process for Missed SubmissionsPDF
80 FR 73841 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BATS Rule 14.11(i) To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund SharesPDF
80 FR 73806 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Transportation Security Officer Medical QuestionnairePDF
80 FR 73674 - Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz BandPDF
80 FR 73756 - Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education FoundationPDF
80 FR 73765 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73715 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Foreign-Trade Zone ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 73766 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
80 FR 73734 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 73818 - Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore South Carolina-Call for Information and Nominations (Call) MMAA104000PDF
80 FR 73817 - Environmental Assessment for Commercial Wind Leasing and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore South Carolina; MMAA104000PDF
80 FR 73878 - Office of the Chief of Protocol; Gifts to Federal Employees From Foreign Government Sources Reported to Employing Agencies in Calendar Year 2014PDF
80 FR 73695 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various CommoditiesPDF
80 FR 73663 - Saflufenacil; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 73661 - Aureobasidium Pullulans Strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 73681 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft EnginesPDF
80 FR 73667 - Occupational Safety and Health Research and Related Activities: Removal of Regulations Regarding Administrative Functions, Practices, and ProceduresPDF
80 FR 73680 - Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection With a Securitization or ParticipationPDF
80 FR 73647 - Rural Development Loan Servicing; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 73637 - Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Regulations; ARPI Basic Provisions and ARPI Forage Crop Insurance ProvisionsPDF

Issue

80 227 Wednesday, November 25, 2015 Contents Agency Agency for International Development PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Decreased Assessment Rates: Tomatoes Grown in Florida, 73642-73644 2015-30018 Increased Assessment Rates: Onions Grown in South Texas, 73640-73642 2015-30020 Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California, 73644-73647 2015-30013 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Housing Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122
Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural Area, 73658-73660 2015-29986 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73734-73735 2015-29910 2015-30042 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73769-73770 2015-30061 Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 73766-73769 2015-29914 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Regulations: Connecticut River, Old Saybrook, CT, 73689-73692 2015-30011 Port of New York, 73692-73694 2015-30056 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 73698-73700 2015-29987
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 73731-73732 2015-30048 Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers, 73732-73733 2015-30047 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Conversion Application Approvals: Central Federal Savings and Loan Association, Rolla, Rolla, MO, 73876 2015-30039 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Flammability Standards for Children's Sleepwear, 73737-73738 2015-29975 Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys and Children's Articles, 73738-73739 2015-29977 Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas, 73736-73737 2015-29976 Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers, 73735-73736 2015-29978 Defense Department Defense Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73740 2015-29997 Arms Sales, 73740-73747 2015-30025 2015-30046 2015-30052 Meetings: Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel), 73739 2015-29983 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: William Mikaitis, M.D., 73833-73834 2015-29935 Importer of Controlled Substances; Applications: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards Warehouse, Manchester, NH, 73830-73833 2015-29934 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941, 73661-73662 2015-29888 Saflufenacil, 73663-73667 2015-29889 PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 Petitions: Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 73695-73696 2015-29893 NOTICES Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education Foundation, 73756-73758 2015-29918 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee, 73756 2015-30102 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee; Public Teleconference, 73758-73759 2015-30096 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Final Determinations in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 73755-73756 2015-30098 Farm Service Farm Service Agency RULES Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction, 73647 2015-29781 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines, 73681-73683 2015-29886 NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 73870-73871 2015-29949 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: Cape Productions, Inc., 73870 2015-29950 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, 73674-73675 2015-29921 PROPOSED RULES FirstNet's Incumbent Relocation Proposal, 73696-73697 2015-30111 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations: Basic Provisions and Forage Crop Insurance Provisions, 73637-73639 2015-29652 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection with a Securitization or Participation, 73680-73681 2015-29821 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 73669-73674 2015-30043 2015-30045 NOTICES Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations, 73797-73804 2015-30017 2015-30035 2015-30041 Final Flood Hazard Determinations, 73804-73806 2015-30038 2015-30049 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Emergency Operations Reliability Standards: Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Definition of Remedial Action Scheme; Related Reliability Standards, 73647-73658 2015-29971 PROPOSED RULES Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation, 73683-73689 2015-29972 NOTICES Applications: Great Bear Hydropower, Inc., 73751-73752 2015-29969 Howard and Mildred Carter; Allen Rae Carter, 73754-73755 2015-29970 Combined Filings, 73749-73751, 73753-73754 2015-29961 2015-29962 2015-29963 2015-29964 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, LLC; Atlantic Bridge Project, 73747-73749 2015-29965 Meetings: Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, LLC; Settlement Conference, 73755 2015-29973 PJM Interconnection, LLC; PJM Interconnection, LLC, and Potomac Electric Power Co.; Technical Conference, 73752-73753 2015-29966 Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: Susan Raymond, 73750-73751 2015-29960 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, IL, 73871 2015-30003 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 73759 2015-30036 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals CMV Driver Medication Form, 73871-73874 2015-30134 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73874-73875 2015-29974 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73760-73766 2015-29917 2015-30016 Change in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 73759-73760 2015-29999 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 73766 2015-30167 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Incidental Take Permit Application, Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and Associated Documents; Polk County, FL, 73810-73811 2015-29995 Permit Applications: Endangered Species, 73808-73810 2015-30002 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Determinations that Products Were Not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: TYLENOL WITH CODEINE (Acetaminophen With Codeine Phosphate) Oral Tablets, 325 Milligrams/7.5 Milligrams, etc., 73770-73771 2015-30051 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Certification Process for Designated Medical Gases, 73771-73774 2015-29989 Meetings: Patient-Focused Drug Development for Psoriasis, 73774-73776 2015-29992 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone under the Alternative Site Framework: Western Kentucky, 73700 2015-30067 Proposed Production Activities: American Tactical Imports, Foreign-Trade Zone 141, Rochester, NY, 73701 2015-30066 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 38, Spartanburg County, SC, 73700-73701 2015-29996 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Occupational Safety and Health Research and Related Activities; Removal of Regulations Regarding Administrative Functions, Practices, and Procedures, 73667-73669 2015-29827 PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 NOTICES Federal Financial Participation in State Assistance Expenditures: Matching Shares for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and Aid to Needy Aged, Blind, or Disabled Persons for October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017, 73779-73782 2015-30050 Medicare Programs: Administrative Law Judge Hearing Program for Medicare Claim and Entitlement Appeals; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuancesù July Through September 2015, 73782-73783 2015-30044
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73776-73779 2015-29948 2015-29967 2015-29968 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

Transportation Security Administration

PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Detailed Budget Form, Budget Worksheet, Application for Federal Assistance, and the Third-Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal Form, 73807-73808 2015-30112 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report Form, 73811-73812 2015-29954 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Foreign-Trade Zone Applications, 73715-73716 2015-29915 Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments from the Public for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Actions on Imports from Korea, 73702-73704 2015-29932 Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments from the Public Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, 73729-73730 2015-29933 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 73726-73729 2015-29984 Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom, 73702 2015-29936 Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and The People's Republic of China, 73716-73722 2015-29985 Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People Republic of China, 73722-73726 2015-29945 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan, 73704-73708 2015-29946 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 73708-73715 2015-29988 High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China; Rescission, 73701-73702 2015-29944 North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; First Request for Panel Review, 73726 2015-29959 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan, 73829-73830 2015-29938 Complaints: Chassis Parts Incorporating Movable Sockets and Components Thereof, 73828-73829 2015-29958 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Collection of Laboratory Analysis Data on Drug Samples Tested by Non-Federal, State and Local Government, Crime Laboratories, 73834-73835 2015-29980 Proposed Settlement Agreements under the Clean Water Act, 73835 2015-30053
Labor Department Labor Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Call for Nominations: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee, Utah, 73813 2015-30027 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: California Desert Conservation Area; Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project, CA; Resource Management Plan, 73815-73816 2015-29982 Proposed Withdrawal of Sagebrush Focal Areas in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming; Correction, 73814 2015-30029 Meetings: Colorado Northwest Resource Advisory Council; Postponement, 73815 2015-29994 Requests for Nominations: Central California Resource Advisory Council, 73814-73815 2015-30005 Coeur Alene Resource Advisory Committee, Idaho; 2015 Third Call, 73816-73817 2015-30012 Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council; Nominees to Complete Elected Official Term, 73814 2015-30009 Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board; Second Call, 73812-73813 2015-30019 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel VAGO, 73875 2015-30028 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES NASA FAR Supplement; Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting, 73675-73677 2015-29947 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: NASA Capitalization Threshold (NFS Case 2015-N004), 73678 2015-29981 PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, 73836 2015-30040 Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, 73836 2015-30033 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Final Human Immunodeficiency Virus Organ Policy Equity Act Safeguards and Research Criteria for Transplantation of Organs Infected with HIV, 73785-73796 2015-30172 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 73783-73784, 73796-73797 2015-29939 2015-29940 2015-30014 2015-30015 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amendment, 73797 2015-29941 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 73784 2015-29943 National Institute of Mental Health, 73783 2015-29942 National Labor National Labor Relations Board NOTICES Appointments of Individuals to Serve as Members of Performance Review Boards, 73836 2015-30031 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Elliot Bay Seawall Project in Seattle, Washington, 73730-73731 2015-29979 National Science National Science Foundation PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Renewals: Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, 73837 2015-30021 Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive Service, 73837-73838 2015-30026 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Call for Information and Nominations: Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore South Carolina, 73818-73828 2015-29908 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Commercial Wind Leasing and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore South Carolina, 73817-73818 2015-29907 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73838-73839 2015-29998 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Meetings: Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, 73839 2015-30034 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Child's Day (Proc. 9370), 73631-73632 2015-30157 National Family Week (Proc. 9371), 73937-73940 2015-30251 Thanksgiving Day (Proc. 9372), 73941-73942 2015-30252 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Burundi; Blocking Property of Certain Persons (EO 13712), 73633-73636 2015-30191 Presidio Presidio Trust NOTICES Wireless Telecommunications SIte, 73839 2015-29993 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service RULES Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction, 73647 2015-29781 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service RULES Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction, 73647 2015-29781 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service RULES Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction, 73647 2015-29781 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Conditional Exemption under the Securities Exchange Act from the Confirmation Requirements for Certain Transactions In Money Market Funds, 73849-73851 2015-29928 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 73841-73849 2015-29926 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 73839-73841 2015-29929 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 73853-73865 2015-29930 2015-29931 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 73852-73853 2015-29927 Social Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment in Burma, 73867-73868 2015-30054 Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 73866 2015-30062 Gifts to Federal Employees from Foreign Government Sources Reported to Employing Agencies in Calendar Year 2014, 73878-73935 2015-29897 Homeland Security Advisory Council—New Tasking, 73866-73867 2015-30064 Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Law, 73865 2015-30063 Modification of Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act Measures Against a Russian Entity, 73865 2015-30058 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Temporary Trackage Rights Exemptions: Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC; Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 73875-73876 2015-30037 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Generalized System of Preferences: Acceptance of a Country Practices Petition on Thailand; Hearing on Certain Country Practice Reviews, 73868-73870 2015-30065 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122
Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Transportation Security Officer Medical Questionnaire, 73806-73807 2015-29925 Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Comptroller of the Currency

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 73679-73680 2015-30122 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II State Department, 73878-73935 2015-29897 Part III Presidential Documents, 73937-73942 2015-30251 2015-30252 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.

80 227 Wednesday, November 25, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 407 [Docket No. FCIC-15-0003] RIN 0563-AC49 Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Regulations; ARPI Basic Provisions and ARPI Forage Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Regulations; ARPI Basic Provisions and ARPI Forage Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to meet the goals of the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI), which is a United States Department of Agriculture initiative and required by Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), by aligning ARPI Forage Production with the Actual Production History Forage Production Crop Insurance Provisions and to address language contained in section 12305(b)(1)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill that prohibits FCIC from offering the catastrophic (CAT) level of coverage for any crops or grasses used for grazing. The changes will be effective for the 2017 and succeeding crop years.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 25, 2015. Written comments and opinions on this rule will be accepted until close of business January 25, 2016. FCIC will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.

ADDRESSES:

FCIC prefers that comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-15-0003 by any of the following methods:

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

Mail: Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64133-6205.

All comments received, including those received by mail, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, and can be accessed by the public. All comments must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rule. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information, see http://www.regulations.gov. If you are submitting comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal and want to attach a document, we ask that it be in a text-based format. If you want to attach a document that is a scanned Adobe PDF file, it must be scanned as text and not as an image, thus allowing FCIC to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. For questions regarding attaching a document that is a scanned Adobe PDF file, please contact the RMA Web Content Team at (816) 823-4694 or by email at [email protected]

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received for any dockets by the name of the person submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice and Comment

We are issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). However, FCIC is providing a 60-day comment period and we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. We will consider the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0085.

E-Government Act Compliance

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

Federal Assistance Program

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

Executive Order 12372

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

Environmental Evaluation

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

Background

FCIC amends the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 407) by revising § 407.9 Area Risk Protection Insurance Policy and § 407.13 Forage Crop Insurance Provisions to be effective for the 2017 succeeding crop years. The revisions meet certain goals of ACRSI, which include elimination of duplicate information collection, simplification of producer reporting, and incorporating language contained in section 12305(b)(1)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill prohibiting FCIC from offering the CAT level of coverage for any crops or grasses used for grazing.

Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the Administrative Procedures Act because contracts were exempt from notice and comment rulemaking and the crop insurance policy is a contract. However, a prior Secretary of Agriculture published a notice in the Federal Register stating that the Department of Agriculture would, to the maximum extent practicable, use the notice and comment rulemaking process when making program changes, including those involving contracts. FCIC has complied with this notice over the subsequent years. Recently, the current Secretary of Agriculture has published a notice in the Federal Register rescinding the prior notice, thereby making contracts again exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking process. However, FCIC values the input it receives through comments and has elected to solicit comments to this final rule. FCIC will consider all of the comments that are received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.

For these reasons, these policy changes are effective upon publication at the Office of the Federal Register.

The specific revisions to Area Risk Protection Insurance Policy (7 CFR 407.9) are as follows:

1. Section 8—FCIC is revising paragraph (e)(2). The current provisions regarding the insured's ability to revise an acreage report state that consent may only be provided if the information on the acreage report is clearly transposed, or the insured provides adequate evidence that the insurance company or someone from USDA has committed an error regarding the information on the acreage report. FCIC is revising this provision to include language that gives FCIC the flexibility through the Crop Provisions or through the Special Provisions to provide additional circumstances for which insureds may revise their acreage reports. This change is necessary due to changes in the ARPI Forage Crop Provisions stated below that allow acreage reports be revised when the acreage has suffered winterkill. FCIC is also revising the paragraph to improve readability.

The specific changes to ARPI Forage crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 407.13) are as follows:

1. Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of “harvest.” The definition of “harvest” states “removal of the forage from the field, and rotational grazing.”

However, the 2014 Farm Bill prohibits FCIC from offering the CAT level of coverage for any crops or grasses used for grazing. Further, the Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP) offers coverage at the CAT and additional levels of coverage. To avoid confusion between the benefits available, FCIC is removing the option to purchase coverage for grazing at the additional and CAT level of coverage so that forage producers are eligible for at least the CAT level of coverage offered under other USDA programs. Therefore, FCIC is removing the term “rotational grazing,” from the definition of “harvest” and removing the definition of “rotational grazing” so that FCIC can continue to offer the CAT level of coverage to forage producers who do not graze acreage.

2. Section 5—FCIC is moving the cancellation date, termination date and contract change date 60 days earlier: For the termination and cancellation dates, from November 30 to September 30, and for the contact change date, from August 31 to June 30. A goal under ACRSI is to establish one acreage reporting date for each commodity that will be used for USDA programs. For perennial forage, ACRSI established two commodities for perennial forage: an established stand and fall-seeded commodity; and a spring-seeded commodity. Each commodity requires its own acreage reporting date: One in the fall and one in the spring, respectively. In order to be insured under the ARPI forage policy, perennial forage must have an established stand for insurance to attach. Therefore, its acreage reporting date needs to be in the fall in order for its acreage reporting date to align with the acreage reporting date for established stand perennial forage insured under other plans of insurance. The acreage reporting date for established stand and fall-seeded perennial forage insured under other plans of insurance FCIC offers is set at November 15 or December 15, depending on the state. The fall date is necessary for the other perennial forage plans of insurance because those plans of insurance provide coverage for damage due to winterkill. Therefore, FCIC must require producers to report their acreage prior to the possibility of an occurrence of winterkill. In order to move the acreage reporting date, which is contained in the actuarial documents, from the current date of July 15 to November 15 or December 15, depending on the state, FCIC must also make adjustments in the Crop Provisions to these other program dates: cancellation and termination dates and the contract change date. This change will make the program dates for forage insured under ARPI consistent with the program dates for forage insured under other plans of insurance.

3. Section 6—FCIC is removing this section and add another in its place. The current section 6 addresses when premium is earned and payable, and overrides section 7(e) in the ARPI Basic Provisions. Basic Provisions section 7(e) states that premium is earned and payable at the time coverage begins, whereas section 6 of the Forage Crop Provisions states that premium is earned and payable on the acreage reporting date. Coverage for forage begins on the date the insurance company accepts the application, which is in the fall. Currently, premium for forage is not earned and payable at the time coverage begins, but rather on the acreage reporting date, which is approximately eight months after insureds submit their applications. Premium is earned and payable on the acreage reporting date because insureds have the opportunity at acreage reporting date to opt out of coverage if they can establish that their acreage was damaged by winterkill by reporting such acreage as uninsurable on the acreage report. Insureds do not owe premium on acreage damaged by winterkill if they report such acreage on the acreage report as uninsurable. Insureds do not know if their acreage is damaged by winterkill until mid-to-late spring. If insureds report such acreage as uninsurable, then they are not required to pay premium on that acreage. FCIC proposes to remove these provisions, which then makes section 7(e) of the Basic Provisions applicable. Therefore, premium will be earned and payable at the time coverage begins. This change will make forage insured under ARPI consistent with forage insured under the APH plan of insurance. As a result of another revision discussed below, insureds will have an opportunity to revise their acreage reports after the acreage reporting date to report their acreage damaged by winterkill as uninsurable acreage if they do not wish to insure that acreage and pay premium on it.

FCIC is adding a new section 6 titled “Report of Acreage.” The provisions in section 6 will allow insureds to submit a revised acreage report by a date specified in the Special Provisions if they want to report their acreage damaged by winterkill as uninsurable acreage. FCIC anticipates the date specified in the Special Provisions to be May 15. Without this provision, insureds would be required to insure and pay premium on acreage they currently are not required to insure under the ARPI Forage Crop Provisions.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 407

Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Final Rule

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 407 effective for the 2017 and succeeding crop years as follows:

PART 407—AREA RISK PROTECTION INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 407 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(o).

2. Amend § 407.9 by: a. In the introductory text, removing “2014” and adding “2017” in its place; and b. In section 8, revising paragraph (e)(2).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 407.9 Area risk protection insurance policy.

8. Report of Acreage and Production

(e) * * *

(2) Consent may only be provided:

(i) If the information on the acreage report is clearly transposed;

(ii) If you provide adequate evidence that we have or someone from USDA has committed an error regarding the information on your acreage report;

(iii) If allowed in the Crop Provisions; or

(iv) As otherwise provided in the Special Provisions; and

3. Amend § 407.13 by: a. In the introductory text, removing “2014” and adding “2017” in its place; b. In section 1: i. Revising the definition of “Harvest”; and ii. Removing the definition of “Rotational grazing”; and c. Revising sections 5 and 6.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 407.13 Area risk protection insurance for forage.

1. Definitions

Harvest. Removal of the forage from the field. Harvest does not include grazing.

5. Program Dates

September 30 is the cancellation and termination date for all states, unless the date is specified differently in the Special Provisions. The contract change date is June 30 for all states, unless the date is specified differently in the Special Provisions.

6. Report of Acreage

In addition to section 8(e)(2) of the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, regarding the ability to revise an acreage report you have submitted to us, we may provide you consent to revise your acreage report to indicate acreage damaged by winterkill that was not harvested (no cutting taken) as uninsurable acreage. You must submit a revised acreage report on or before the date specified in the Special Provisions.

Signed in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2015. Brandon Willis, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2015-29652 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 959 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0036; FV15-959-1 FR] Onions Grown in South Texas; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the South Texas Onion Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of onions operating within the area of production. Assessments upon onion handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective November 27, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 959, as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This rule increases the assessment rate established by the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions.

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

For the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on June 25, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Budgeted expenditures for the 2014-15 fiscal period were the same. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the rate currently in effect. With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. With the Committee's recommended $0.02 increase, assessment income should approximate $200,000. This should provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2014-15.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of South Texas onions, and the level of funds in reserve. As mentioned earlier, onion shipments for the year are estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents which should provide $200,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $23,906) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses as authorized in § 959.43).

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

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

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are approximately 60 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), the average price for South Texas onions during the 2013-2014 season was around $12.00 per 50-pound equivalent and total shipments were approximately 4.4 million 50-pound equivalents. Based on this information and data on acreage and yield, the majority of South Texas onion producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. In addition, based on available information, more than 50 percent of South Texas onion handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Thus, the majority of South Texas onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent of Texas onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.02 higher than the 2012-13 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2015-16 fiscal period is estimated at four million 50-pound equivalents. Thus, the $0.05 rate should provide $200,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 fiscal period include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same during the 2014-15 fiscal period.

With the 2015-16 crop estimated to be four million 50-pound equivalents, one million less than last year's estimate, the current assessment rate would be insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures. Further, due to a crop failure during the 2014-15 season, the Committee has depleted its reserve funds. The Committee recommended the $0.02 increase to provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated 2015-16 expenses and add funds to the Committee's authorized reserve.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by this group, based upon the relative value of various activities to the South Texas onion industry. The Committee ultimately determined that 2015-16 expenditures of $149,807 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate, along with interest income, would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming season indicates that the grower price for the 2015-16 season should average around $9.55 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue could be approximately 0.52 percent for the season.

This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 (Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2015 (80 FR 56399). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all onion handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending October 19, 2015, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the crop year began on August 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable onions handled during such period. Further, handlers are aware of this rule which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 60-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 959

Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is amended as follows:

PART 959—ONIONS GROWN IN SOUTH TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 959 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 959.237 is revised to read as follows:
§ 959.237 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.05 per 50-pound equivalent is established for South Texas onions.

Dated: November 20, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30020 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 966 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0058; FV15-966-1 IR] Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0375 to $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers of tomatoes operating within the area of production. Assessments upon tomato handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective November 27, 2015. Comments received by January 25, 2016, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Kauffman, Marketing Specialist or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 837-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or Christian.[email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0375 to $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes.

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

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

The Committee met on August 25, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $1,513,177 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,823,925. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.0075 lower than the rate currently in effect. The budget recommended for 2015-16 include decreases in education and promotion expenditures and personnel costs. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to more closely align assessment income to the lower budget.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $435,377 for salaries, $400,000 for education and promotion, and $400,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014-15 were $498,500, $750,000, and $300,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by reviewing anticipated expenses, shipments, funds from block grants, interest income, and available reserves. Florida tomato shipments for the year are estimated at 33 million 25-pound cartons which should provide $990,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, interest income, and funds from block grants, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $1,136,195) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of not to exceed one fiscal period's expenses as authorized in § 966.44.

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

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are approximately 100 producers of tomatoes in the production area and approximately 80 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2014-15 season was approximately $10.58 per 25-pound container, and total fresh shipments for the 2014-15 season were approximately 36.5 million cartons. Based on the average price, about 80 percent of handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Florida tomato growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established by the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0375 to $0.03 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $1,513,177 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 25-pound carton. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.0075 lower than the 2013-14 rate. The quantity of assessable tomatoes for the 2015-16 season is estimated at 33 million cartons. Thus, the $0.03 rate should provide $990,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, interest income, and funds from block grants, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 year include $435,377 for salaries, $400,000 for education and promotion, and $400,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014-15 were $498,500, $750,000, and $300,000, respectively. The Committee recommended a decrease in the assessment rate based on a reduction in expenditures for education and promotion, and personnel expenses.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee Executive Subcommittee, Research Subcommittee, and Education and Promotion Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the tomato industry. The Committee ultimately determined that assessment revenue, along with grant funds, funds from reserves and interest income, would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2015-16 season may be around $10.50 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could be approximately 0.3 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2015-16 fiscal period began on August 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable Florida tomatoes handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis and this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable tomatoes beginning with the 2015-16 fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966

Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as follows:

PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN FLORIDA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 966 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 966.234 is revised to read as follows:
§ 966.234 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.03 per 25-pound container is established for Florida tomatoes.

Dated: November 20, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30018 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 989 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0032; FV15-989-2 FR] Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Raisin Administrative Committee (committee) for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $14.00 to $17.00 per ton of California raisins handled under the marketing order (order). The committee locally administers the order, and is comprised of producers and handlers of raisins operating within the area of production. Assessments upon raisin handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The crop year begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective November 27, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 989, both as amended (7 CFR part 989), regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This rule increases the assessment rate established by the committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $14.00 to $17.00 per ton of California raisins handled.

Sections 989.79 and 989.80, respectively, of the order provide authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses, and to collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California raisins. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with costs for goods and services in their local area, and are, thus, in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2010-11 and subsequent crop years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from crop year to crop year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.

The committee met on June 11, 2015, and recommended an assessment rate increase from $14.00 per ton to $17.00 per ton by a unanimous vote. At this meeting, the committee also recommended a budget for the 2015-16 crop year, with recommended expenses and contingency reserve totaling $5,832,496. The vote on this recommendation was also unanimous. The assessment rate of $17.00 per ton is expected to generate assessment income of $5,832,496, which should be sufficient to fund the 2015-16 expenses.

As previously stated, the committee's budget for the 2015-16 crop year is $5,832,496, and the assessment rate is $17.00 per ton, which is $3.00 per ton higher than the rate currently in effect.

The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015-16 crop year include: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,402,906; administration costs of $610,000; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research and studies costs of $129,000; operation and maintenance costs of the generic marketing programs of $3,520,178; and a contingency of $355,503. Subtracted from these expenses is $215,091, which represents reimbursable costs for the shared management of the State marketing program.

In comparison, last year's approved budgeted expenditures included: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,337,100; administration costs of $493,500; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research and studies costs of $85,000; operation and maintenance costs of the generic marketing programs of $3,296,800; and a contingency of $100,000. Reimbursable costs for the shared management of the State marketing program of $166,860 were subtracted, resulting in a total approved budget for the 2014-15 crop year of $5,175,540.

The committee believes that more funds should be spent in promoting raisins internationally, including China. For that reason, budgeted expenses in those endeavors have been increased: Research and studies costs increased from $85,000 for the 2014-15 crop year to $129,000 for the 2015-16 crop year; and operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs increased from $3,296,800 for the 2014-15 crop year to $3,520,178 for the 2015-16 crop year. In addition, the committee included a contingency fund for unexpected expenses and opportunities that may occur during the year.

The quantity of assessable raisins for 2015-16 crop year was estimated to be 343,088 tons. At the assessment rate of $17.00 per ton, the anticipated assessment income would be $5,832,496. Sufficient income should be generated at the higher assessment rate for the committee to meet its anticipated expenses.

Pursuant to § 989.81(a) of the order, any unexpended assessment funds from the crop year must be credited or refunded to the handlers from whom collected.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information.

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

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are approximately 3,000 producers of California raisins and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and defines small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201.)

Based upon shipment data and other information provided by the committee, it may be concluded that a majority of producers and approximately 18 handlers of California raisins may be classified as small entities.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $14.00 to $17.00 per ton of assessable raisins acquired by handlers.

The committee reviewed and identified the expenses that are reasonable and necessary to continue program operations during the 2015-16 crop year. The resulting recommended budget totals $5,832,496 for the 2015-16 crop year. This represents an overall increase from the 2014-15 budget, which totaled $5,175,540. The 2015-16 budget includes additional expenditures to fund increased promotional programs in export markets, and a contingency fund of $355,503, which provides a safety net to cover unexpected expenses and opportunities that present themselves during the 2015-16 crop year.

The quantity of assessable raisins for 2015-16 crop year was estimated to be 343,088 tons. At the assessment rate of $17.00 per ton, the anticipated assessment income would be $5,832,496. Sufficient income should be generated at the higher assessment rate for the committee to meet its anticipated expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015-16 crop year include: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,402,906; administration costs of $610,000; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research costs of $129,000; operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs of $3,520,178; and a contingency of $355,503.

In comparison, last year's approved budgeted expenditures included: Salaries and employee-related costs of $1,337,100; administration costs of $493,500; compliance activities costs of $30,000; research costs of $85,000; operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs of $3,296,800; and a contingency of $100,000. The total budget approved for the 2014-15 crop year was $5,175,540.

The committee believes that more funds should be spent in promoting raisins internationally, including China. For that reason, expenses for research and promotion activities have been increased: Operation and maintenance costs of generic marketing programs increased from $3,296,800 for the 2014-15 crop year to $3,520,178 for the 2015-16 crop year, and research costs have increased from $85,000 for the 2014-15 crop year to $129,000 for the 2015-16 crop year. In order to fund these additional expenditures, the committee recommended an increased assessment rate.

Pursuant to § 989.81(a) of the order, any unexpended assessment funds from the crop year must be credited or refunded to the handlers from whom collected.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the committee considered information from various sources, such as the committee's Audit and Marketing Subcommittees. Alternative spending levels were discussed by the Marketing and Audit Subcommittees, which met on June 8, 2015 and June 11, 2015, to review the committee's financial operations.

The committee ultimately decided that the recommended budget and assessment rate were reasonable and necessary to properly administer the order.

A review of statistical data on the California raisin industry indicates that assessment revenue has consistently been less than one percent of grower revenue in recent years. With a $17.00 assessment rate, assessment revenue is expected to remain at less than one percent of grower revenue.

Regarding the impact of this action on affected entities, this action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While increased assessments impose additional costs on handlers regulated under the order, the rates are uniform on all handlers, and proportional to the size of their businesses. It is expected that these costs would be offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the order.

In addition, the meetings of the Audit and Marketing Subcommittees, and the full committee were widely publicized throughout the California raisin industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all subcommittee and committee meetings, the June 8, 2015 and June 11, 2015, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crops.” No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California raisin handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53022). Copies of the proposed rule were mailed or sent via facsimile or email to all raisin handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the Internet by USDA and the office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending October 2, 2015, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. Five comments were received: Four in support of the proposed rule and one opposed. The commenter in opposition questioned the use of funds for more committee travel and expressed concern that past trips have not increased sales. The commenter is also concerned that the increase would be at the expense of producers. This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While some of these additional costs may be passed on to producers, the committee, which is comprised of producers and handlers, unanimously voted to increase the assessment rate. It is expected that the increase in costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the industry, as a whole. Accordingly, no change will be made to the rule as proposed.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because handlers are already receiving 2015-16 raisin crop from growers, and the crop year began on August 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the assessment rate applies to all assessable raisins received during the 2015-16 and subsequent seasons. Further, handlers are aware of this rule which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

Grapes, Marketing agreements, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as follows:

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED FROM GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 989 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 989.347 is revised to read as follows:
§ 989.347 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $17.00 per ton is established for assessable raisins produced from grapes grown in California.

Dated: November 20, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30013 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Utilities Service Farm Service Agency 7 CFR Part 1956 RIN 0570-AA88 Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency USDA.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to the published rule in the Federal Register of March 13, 2015, entitled “Rural Development Loan Servicing.”

DATES:

Effective November 25, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melvin Padgett, Rural Development, Business Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 3226, Washington, DC 20250-3225; telephone (202) 720-1495; email [email protected]/gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the rule that is the subject of this correction, the Agency revised 7 CFR 1956.101 as intended, but the Agency inadvertently did not make the correct conforming change in 7 CFR 1956.147. To correct this oversight, the Agency is “reserving” 7 CFR 1956.147 in its entirety. This correction has no substantive effect on how debts are settled under this part.

Need for Correction

As published, the text that remains in 7 CFR 1956.147 after the March 13, 2015, rule may be misleading and cause confusion as a result of the changes made to 7 CFR 1956.101 in the March 13, 2015, rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1956

Loan programs—agriculture, Loan programs—housing and community development.

Accordingly, 7 CFR 1956.147 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

PART 1956—DEBT SETTLEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 1956 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; and 7 U.S.C. 1989.

§ 1956.147 [Removed and Reserved]
2. Remove and reserve § 1956.147.
Dated: November 12, 2015. Lisa Mensah, Under Secretary, Rural Development. Dated: November 17, 2015. Michael Scuse, Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
[FR Doc. 2015-29781 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket Nos. RM15-7-000, RM15-12-000, and RM15-13-000 Order No. 818] Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization. The Commission approves Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). The proposed Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards. The Commission also approves NERC's revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Further, the Commission approves the implementation plans, and the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards.

DATES:

This rule will become effective January 25, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juan Villar (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (772) 678-6496, [email protected] Nick Henery (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8636, [email protected] Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, Mark.Benn[email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 818 Final Rule (Issued November 19, 2015)

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). In particular, the Commission approves Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). The Commission finds that the Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline, and clarify the existing requirements of several currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards, and address certain Commission directives set forth in Order No. 693.2

1 16 U.S.C. 824o.

2Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).

2. Further, the Commission approves NERC's revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Also, the Commission approves the associated implementation plans and assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, as well as the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards.

I. Background

3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.3

3North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

4. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including initial versions of EOP-001, EOP-002, and EOP-003.4 In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop certain modifications to the EOP standards. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved several Undervoltage Load Shedding (UVLS)-related Reliability Standards, including PRC-010-0, PRC-021-1 and PRC-022-1.5 Further, the Commission directed NERC to modify Reliability Standard PRC-010-0 to develop an “integrated and coordinated” approach to all protection systems.6 In Order No. 693, the Commission approved the NERC Glossary, including NERC's currently-effective Special Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme definitions.

4 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,242.

5Id. PP 1509, 1560, and 1565. The Commission neither approved nor rejected proposed Reliability Standard PRC-020-1, explaining that the standard only applied to Regional Reliability Organizations. Id. P 1555.

6Id. P 1509.

II. NERC Petitions

5. NERC submitted three related petitions that we address together in this Final Rule.7

7 Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 are not attached to this Final Rule, nor are the additional Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to modify to incorporate the term Remedial Action Scheme. The Reliability Standards are available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in the identified dockets and on the NERC Web site, www.nerc.com.

A. NERC EOP Petition—Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Docket No. RM15-7-000)

6. On December 29, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, a revised definition of “Energy Emergency” and the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is “to address the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating Plans to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator area.” 8 NERC explained that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 consolidates the requirements of three existing standards: EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2 “into a single Reliability Standard that clarifies the critical requirements for Emergency Operations while ensuring strong communication and coordination across the functional entities.” 9 NERC also asserted that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 satisfies seven Commission directives set forth in Order No. 693.10

8 NERC EOP Petition at 2.

9Id. at 3.

10Id. at 12-18.

7. NERC noted that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, Requirements R2 and R6 incorporate Attachment 1, which describes three Energy Emergency levels used by the reliability coordinator and the process for communicating the condition of a balancing authority experiencing an Energy Emergency.11

11 Attachment 1 describes three alert levels: Energy Emergency Alert Level 1 (all available generation resources in use, concern about sustaining required contingency reserves); Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (load management procedures in effect, energy deficient balancing authority implements its emergency Operating Plan but maintains minimum contingency reserve requirements); and Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (firm load interruption is imminent or in process, energy deficient balancing authority unable to maintain minimum contingency reserve requirements).

8. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 includes six requirements, and is applicable to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators. Requirement R1 requires transmission operators to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans to mitigate operating emergencies in its “transmission operating area.” 12 Requirement R1 provides that, “as applicable,” operating plans must: (1) Describe the roles and responsibilities for activating the operating plan; and (2) include processes to prepare for and mitigate emergencies, such as Reliability Coordinator notification, transmission system reconfiguration, and redispatch of generation. NERC explained that Requirement R1 uses the phrase “as applicable” to provide “flexibility to account for regional differences and pre-existing methods for mitigating emergencies.” 13 NERC added that an entity's decision to omit an element as not “applicable” must include an explanation in its plan. NERC further explained that the requirement for transmission operators to maintain operating plans includes the expectation that the plans are current and up-to-date.14

12 Operating Plan is defined in the NERC Glossary as a “document that identifies a group of activities that may be used to achieve some goal. An Operating Plan may contain Operating Procedures and Operating Processes . . .”

13 NERC EOP Petition at 9.

14Id. at 8-9.

9. Requirement R2 requires balancing authorities to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies in its “balancing authority area.” Similar to the operating plans developed by transmission operators pursuant to the first requirement, the elements of the operating plans developed by balancing authorities allow for flexibility, provided an explanation is provided for omitted elements.15

15Id.

10. Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators to review the operating plans submitted by transmission operators and balancing authorities and is designed to ensure that there is appropriate coordination of reliability risks identified in the operating plans. In reviewing operating plans, reliability coordinators shall consider compatibility, coordination and inter-dependency with other entity operating plans and notify transmission providers and balancing authorities if revisions to their operating plans are necessary.16

16Id. at 10-11.

11. Requirement R4 requires transmission operators and balancing authorities to resolve any issues identified by the reliability coordinator and resubmit their revised operating plans within a time period specified by the reliability coordinator. Requirement R5 requires reliability coordinators to notify balancing authorities and transmission operators in its area, and neighboring reliability coordinators, within 30 minutes of receiving an emergency notification. Requirement R6 requires a reliability coordinator with a balancing authority experiencing a potential or actual Energy Emergency to declare an Energy Emergency alert in accordance with Attachment 1.

12. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 also includes the following revised definition of Energy Emergency:

Energy Emergency—A condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations.

NERC explained that the revised definition is intended to clarify that an Energy Emergency is not limited to a load-serving entity and, based on a review of the impact on the body of NERC Reliability Standards, “does not change the reliability intent of other requirements of Definitions.” 17

17Id. at 18.

13. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date of Commission approval, and a retirement date for currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2 of midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1.

B. NERC PRC Petition—Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Docket No. RM15-12-000)

14. On February 6, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding), a revised definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program) for inclusion in the NERC Glossary, and the associated violation risk factors, violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC also proposed the retirement of four PRC Reliability Standards.18 NERC stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is to “establish an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation, and reliable operation of Undervoltage Load Shedding Programs” as directed by the Commission in Order No. 693.19

18 Reliability Standards PRC-010-0 (Assessment of the Design and Effectiveness of UVLS Program); PRC-020-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Database); PRC-021-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Data); and PRC-022-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Performance).

19 NERC PRC Petition at 14 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs ¶ 31,242 at P 1509).

15. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is a single, comprehensive standard that addresses the same reliability principles outlined in the four currently-effective UVLS-related Reliability Standards.20 Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 replaces the applicability to and involvement of “Regional Reliability Organization” in Reliability Standards PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1 and improves upon and consolidates the four currently-effective UVLS-Related Standards into one comprehensive standard. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “reflects consideration of the 2003 Blackout Report recommendations,” 21 particularly, Recommendation 21 for NERC to “make more effective and wider use of system protection measures” 22 and Recommendation 21C for NERC to “determine the goals and principles needed to establish an integrated approach to relay protection for generators and transmission lines, as well as of UFLS and UVLS programs.” 23

20Id.

21Id. at 2 (citing the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, April, 2004 (2003 Blackout Report)).

22Id. at 4 (citing 2003 Blackout Report at 3, 158).

23Id. at 6.

16. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 incorporates a new definition of UVLS Program, which reads:

Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program): An automatic load shedding program, consisting of distributed relays and controls, used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the Bulk Electric System (BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading. Centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding is not included.

NERC explained that “to ensure that the applicability of the proposed Reliability Standard covers undervoltage‐based load shedding systems whose performance has an impact on system reliability, a UVLS Program must mitigate risk of one or more of the following: Voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading impacting the Bulk Electric System. By focusing on the enumerated risks, the definition is meant to exclude locally‐applied relays that are not designed to mitigate wide‐area voltage collapse.” 24 NERC stated that the UVLS Program definition “clearly identifies and separates centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding, which is now addressed by the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme.” 25

24Id. at 16.

25Id. at 15. NERC's petition for approval of the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme (Docket No. RM15-13-000) is discussed below.

17. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 applies to planning coordinators and transmission planners because “either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program . . . [and] also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner or Planning Coordinator.” 26 NERC explained that the planning coordinator or transmission planner that establishes a UVLS Program is responsible for identifying the UVLS equipment and the necessary distribution provider and transmission owner (referred to as “UVLS entities” in the Applicability section) that performs the required actions.

26Id.

18. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “applies only after an entity has determined the need for a UVLS Program as a result of its own planning studies.” 27 NERC explained that the eight requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 meet four primary objectives: (1) The Reliability Standard requires applicable entities to evaluate a UVLS Program's effectiveness prior to implementation, including coordination with other protection systems and generator voltage ride-through capabilities; (2) applicable entities must comply with UVLS program specifications and implementation schedule; (3) applicable entities must perform periodic assessment and performance analysis; and (4) applicable entities must maintain and share UVLS Program data.28

27Id. at 14.

28Id. at 17.

19. Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of its UVLS program before implementation to confirm its effectiveness in resolving the undervoltage conditions for which it was designed, and that it is integrated through coordination with generator ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems. Also, the planning coordinator or transmission planner must provide the UVLS Program specifications and implementation schedule to the applicable UVLS entities. Requirement R2 requires UVLS entities to meet the UVLS Program's specifications and implementation schedule provided by the planning coordinator or transmission planner or address any necessary corrective actions in accordance with Requirement R5.

20. Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to perform periodic comprehensive assessments at least every 60 calendar months to ensure continued effectiveness of the UVLS program, including whether the program resolves identified undervoltage issues and that it is integrated and coordinated with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other specified protection and control systems. Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to commence a timely assessment of a voltage excursion subject to the UVLS Program, within 12 calendar months of the event, to evaluate whether the UVLS Program resolved the undervoltage issues associated with the event. Requirement R5 requires a corrective action plan for any program deficiencies identified during an assessment performed under either Requirement R3 or R4, and provide an implementation schedule to UVLS entities within three calendar months of its completion.

21. Pursuant to Requirement R6, a planning coordinator must update the data necessary to model its UVLS Program for use in event analyses and program assessments at least each calendar year. Requirement R7 requires each UVLS entity to provide data to its planning coordinator, according to the planning coordinator's format and schedule, to support maintenance of the UVLS Program database. Requirement R8 requires a planning coordinator to provide its UVLS Program database to other planning coordinators and transmission planners within its Interconnection, and other functional entities with a reliability need, within 30 calendar days of a written request.

22. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 and the definition of UVLS Program of the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date that the standard and definition are approved by the Commission. NERC proposed to retire PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1, PRC-021-1, and PRC-022-1 at midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of PRC-010-1.29 Further, NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 addresses reliability obligations that are set forth in Requirements R2, R4 and R7 of currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-003-2.30 Since NERC has proposed to retire EOP-003-2 in the petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Docket No. RM15-7-00, discussed above), concurrent Commission action on the two petitions will prevent a possible reliability gap.

29Id. Ex. B (Implementation Plan).

30Id. at 23.

C. NERC RAS Petition—Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” (Docket No. RM15-13-000)

23. On February 3, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme in the NERC Glossary, as well as modified Reliability Standards that incorporate the new Remedial Action Scheme definition and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System, and the associated implementation plan.31 NERC stated that the defined terms Special Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme are currently used interchangeably throughout the NERC Regions and in various Reliability Standards. NERC explained that “[a]lthough these defined terms share a common definition in the NERC Glossary of Terms today, their use and application have been inconsistent as a result of a lack of granularity in the definition and varied regional uses of the terms. The proposed revisions add clarity and granularity that will allow for proper identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability Standards.” 32

31 NERC RAS Petition at 1-2. NERC requested approval of the following Reliability Standards to incorporate the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System: EOP-004-3, PRC-005-3(ii), PRC-023-4, FAC-010-3, TPL-001-0.1(i), FAC-011-3, TPL-002-0(i)b, MOD-030-3, TPL-003-0(i)b, MOD-029-2a, PRC-015-1, TPL-004-0(i)a, PRC-004-WECC-2, PRC-016-1, PRC-001-1.1(i), PRC-005-2(ii), PRC-017-1. NERC did not propose any changes to the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for the modified standards.

32Id. at 4-5.

24. NERC explained that the revised Remedial Action Scheme definition consists of a “core” definition, including a list of objectives and a separate list of exclusions for certain schemes or systems not intended to be covered by the revised definition.33 NERC stated that a broad definition is needed because of “all the possible scenarios an entity may develop” for its Remedial Action Scheme and a “very specific, narrow definition may unintentionally exclude schemes that should be covered.” 34 Accordingly, NERC proposed the following revised “core” definition of Remedial Action Scheme:

33Id. at 16. NERC noted that “for each exclusion, the scheme or system could still classify as a Remedial Action Scheme if employed in a broader scheme that meets the definition of Remedial Action Scheme.”

34Id. at 17.

A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). (sic) RAS accomplish objectives such as:

• Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards;

• Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;

• Maintain acceptable BES voltages;

• Maintain acceptable BES power flows;

• Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.

The definition then lists fourteen exclusions, describing specific schemes and systems that do not constitute a Remedial Action Scheme, because each is either a protection function, a control function, a combination of both, or used for system configuration.35

35Id. at 18.

25. In the implementation plan, NERC proposed an effective date for the revised Reliability Standards and the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after Commission approval.36 NERC also proposed that, for entities with existing schemes that become newly classified as “Remedial Action Schemes” resulting from the application of the revised definition, the entities will have additional time of up to 24 months from the effective date to be fully compliant with all applicable Reliability Standards.37 Further, NERC asked the Commission to take final action concurrently with the NERC petition on proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Docket No. RM15-12-000) because “[t]he proposed definitions of UVLS Program and Remedial Action Scheme in each project have been coordinated to cover centrally controlled UVLS as a Remedial Action Scheme. Final action by the Commission is needed contemporaneously on both petitions to facilitate implementation and avoid a gap in coverage of centrally controlled UVLS.” 38

36 NERC RAS Petition, Ex. C (Implementation Plan) at 4.

37Id.

38 NERC RAS Petition at 3-4.

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

26. On June 18, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the Reliability Standards and NERC Glossary definitions set forth in NERC's three petitions pertaining to EOP-011-1, PRC-010-1 and a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. 39 The Commission also proposed to approve the related violation risk factors, violation severity levels and implementation plans.

39Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 36,293 (June 24, 2015), 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 (2015) (NOPR).

27. The Commission proposed to approve the retirement of Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1, EOP-003-2, PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1. However, the Commission expressed concerns about whether it was appropriate to retire PRC-022-1 before a replacement Reliability Standard is approved and implemented to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to deny NERC's request to retire Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 concurrent with the effective date of PRC-010-1.

28. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 provide greater clarity and that the consolidation of currently-effective EOP and PRC standards provides additional efficiencies for responsible entities. The Commission also agreed with NERC that the new definition of Remedial Action Scheme will improve reliability by eliminating ambiguity and encouraging the consistent identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability Standards.

29. While the Commission proposed to approve Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, the Commission raised questions and sought clarification regarding an example of a “BES subsystem” that NERC provided in the “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition.” The Commission indicated that, depending on the response from NERC and others, a directive for further modification may be appropriate.40

40 NOPR, 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 at P 27.

30. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from: NERC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Peak Reliability, Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), International Transmission Company (ITC), Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (LG&E/KU) and Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power).

IV. Discussion

31. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1, the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme and NERC Glossary definitions, and associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels and implementation plans as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. The Commission believes that the modified Reliability Standards provide greater clarity, and the consolidated EOP and PRC standards will provide additional efficiencies for responsible entities. We also determine that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 adequately addresses seven Order No. 693 directives, and that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 establishes an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation and reliable operation of UVLS Programs, and therefore satisfies the Commission directive issued in Order No. 693.41 Further, we approve the retirement of certain Reliability Standards as identified by NERC.42

41 Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1509.

42 As noted above, the Commission in Order No. 693 did not approve or remand proposed Reliability Standard PRC-020-1 but, rather, took no action on the Reliability Standard pending the receipt of additional information. Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1555. Our approval of NERC's request renders PRC-020-1 “retired,” i.e., withdrawn, and no longer pending before the Commission.

32. We discuss below the following issues raised in the NOPR and comments: (1) The deregistration of load-serving entities and Reliability Standard EOP-011-1; (2) the scheduling and scope of reliability coordinator reviews of Operating Plans under Reliability Standard EOP-011-1; (3) the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-022-1; (4) the term “BES subsystem” and related diagram in NERC's PRC Petition; and (5) other issues raised by commenters.

A. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 1. The Deregistration of Load-Serving Entities NOPR

33. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and a new Energy Emergency definition, the Commission stated that the removal of load-serving entities from the Reliability Standard raises questions about who would perform the roles traditionally performed by load-serving entities.43 The NOPR explained that the Commission's decision concerning NERC's compliance filing in Docket No. RR15-4-000 related to NERC's Risk-Based Registration initiative would guide the Commission's action on this question in this proceeding. 

43 NOPR, 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 at P 24, n.36. Currently effective EOP-002-3.1 applies, inter alia, to load-serving entities. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 replaces EOP-002-3.1, and applies to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators, but not load-serving entities.

Comments

34. NERC, EEI, TAPS, ITC and Idaho Power support the Commission's proposed approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. Further, NERC, EEI and TAPS state that excluding load-serving entities from the Reliability Standard will not create a reliability gap. NERC states that currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-002-3.1 Requirement R9 is the only requirement in the three Reliability Standards being replaced by Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 that applies to load-serving entities. NERC explains that the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) has modified the process for E-tag specifications, removing the load-serving entities' role in making changes to the priority of transmission service requests. Therefore, the “Standard Drafting Team did not incorporate Requirement R9 into Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, because Requirement R9 has become obsolete due to technological changes.” 44

44 NERC Comments at 4.

35. Additionally, NERC explains that, due to the Real-time nature of energy emergencies, balancing authorities and distribution providers will handle responsibilities related to Reliability Standard EOP-002-3.1 that have been performed by load-serving entities. Referring to the Mapping Document and Application Guidelines for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, NERC states that “LSEs have no Real-time reliability functionality with respect to EEAs [Energy Emergency Alerts].” 45

45Id. at 5-6.

36. TAPS and EEI agree with NERC's analysis of the roles and responsibilities of load-serving entities and that excluding them will not create any reliability gaps. TAPS states that “there is no reliability benefit to retaining EOP-002-3.1's Requirement R9, and thus no reliability risk from eliminating the LSE obligation to comply with it.” 46 EEI asserts that “NERC is correct that `tasks currently assigned to the LSE function under NERC Reliability Standards would continue to be performed by other functions subject to currently applicable LSE Reliability Standard Requirements or by market participants (including LSEs) pursuant to existing tariffs, market rules, market protocols and other market agreements.' ” 47 Regarding Operating Plans that transmission operators and balancing authorities are to develop under Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirements R1 and R2, EEI states that “it is clear that the responsible entities required to perform the activities attributed to the LSE function necessary to aid in arresting an Energy Emergency must be identified to ensure necessary mitigation can be accomplished in order to ensure reliable operation of the BES.” 48

46 TAPS Comments at 4.

47 EEI Comments at 5-6, quoting NERC's compliance filing in RR15-4-000 at 1.

48Id. at 6.

37. LG&E/KU seeks clarification on two questions pertaining to the exclusion of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 “to ensure that even if NERC's EOP proposal is accepted, [balancing authorities] will have a meaningful way of addressing any operational gaps with Energy Emergencies and LSEs.” 49 First, LG&E/KU seeks clarification that an Energy Emergency can be isolated to a load-serving entity's inability to meet its own load obligations, as indicated in NERC's revised definition of Energy Emergency. Second, LG&E/KU seeks clarification that Operating Plans developed by balancing authorities may describe the role for load-serving entities in responding to an Energy Emergency, and may include such Operating Plans in applicable tariffs.

49 LG&E/KU Comments at 2.

Commission Determination

38. Consistent with our determination in the “risk-based registration” proceeding, we find that the elimination of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 will not prevent the Reliability Standard from achieving its stated purposes or otherwise create reliability gaps.50 We find that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 enhances reliability by requiring that actions necessary to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies are focused in single operating plans, and ensures communication and coordination among relevant entities during emergency operations. We are persuaded by NERC's explanation that excluding load-serving entities will not adversely impact reliability due to technological changes concerning NAESB tagging specifications, and that load-serving entities “have no Real-time reliability functionality with respect to EEAs [Energy Emergency Alerts].” 51 Further, as both NERC and EEI have stated, “tasks currently assigned to the LSE function under NERC Reliability Standards would continue to be performed by other functions subject to currently applicable LSE Reliability Standard Requirements or by market participants (including LSEs) pursuant to tariffs, market rules, market protocols and other market agreements.” 52

50See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 153 FERC ¶ 61,024, at P 20 (2015) (RBR Compliance Order) (approving the proposed elimination of the load-serving entity function).

51 NERC Comments at 5, quoting the EOP-011-1 Mapping Document and Application Guidelines.

52 EEI Comments at 5-6.

39. We disagree with LG&E/KU's suggestion that the reference to load-serving entities in NERC's revised definition of Energy Emergency indicates the possibility of an “operational gap.” NERC revises the definition of “Energy Emergency,” approved in this Final Rule, as “[a] condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations.” 53 Based on a plain reading of this definition, we agree with LG&E/KU that a load-serving entity's inability to meet its own load obligations could result in an Energy Emergency. Moreover, consistent with our findings in the RBR Compliance Order, we agree with LG&E/KU that operating plans developed by balancing authorities—including operating plans contained in applicable tariffs—may describe the role for load-serving entities in responding to an Energy Emergency.54 EEI's observation regarding Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirements R1 and R2 for transmission operators and balancing authorities to develop Operating Plans to mitigate Energy Emergencies reinforces this determination: “[a]lthough these requirements do not specifically identify the `who' or `what' actions to be taken, it is clear that the responsible entities required to perform the activities attributed to the LSE function necessary to aid in arresting an energy emergency must be identified to ensure necessary mitigation can be accomplished in order to ensure reliable operation of the BES.” 55 Accordingly, we conclude that elimination of the load-serving entity function from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 does not result in an operational gap and, rather, provides a reasonable means of addressing Energy Emergencies.

53 NERC EOP Petition, Ex. B (Implementation Plan) at 1.

54 RBR Compliance Order, 153 FERC ¶ 61,024 at 21.

55 EEI Comments at 6.

2. The Scheduling and Scope of Reliability Coordinator Reviews of Operating Plans

40. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, Requirement R3 obligates a reliability coordinator to review the Operating Plan(s) to mitigate operating emergencies submitted by a transmission operator or a balancing authority. Pursuant to Requirement R3.1, a reliability coordinator must, within 30 days of receipt, (i) review each Operating Plan for compatibility and inter-dependency with other transmission operator or balancing authority Operating Plans, (ii) review each Operating Plan for coordination to avoid risk to “Wide Area” reliability, and (iii) notify each transmission operator and balancing authority of the results of the review.

Comments

41. Peak Reliability asserts that the “inflexible” 30 day period for reliability coordinator reviews of operating plans in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirement R3.1 is not reasonable. According to Peak Reliability, because transmission operators have an “open ended” opportunity to submit operating plans under the provision, reliability coordinators cannot schedule in advance the needed resources to perform a proper review in the 30-day window. Peak Reliability notes that, in its experience, many entities update their plans at the end of the year, creating a large spike in review work at that time. Peak Reliability, therefore, recommends revising Requirement R3.1 to include language requiring “a mutually agreed predetermined schedule” to ensure that the reliability coordinator can efficiently allocate its resources and provide a thorough review of submitted operating plans.56

56 Peak Reliability Comments at 6-7.

42. Peak Reliability also seeks clarification regarding the scope of reliability coordinator review of operating plans, and whether a reliability coordinator must review each required element of an operating plan specified in Requirement R2 for “compatibility and interdependency” with other balancing authority and transmission operator operating plans, or “evaluate these elements on a higher level.” 57 Peak Reliability asserts that the “appropriate level of review” by reliability coordinators is “for coordination to avoid risk to Wide Area reliability.” Based on this assertion, Peak Reliability recommends that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 require balancing authorities and transmission operators to identify and coordinate possible operating plan discrepancies before submission for reliability coordinator review, as currently required under Reliability Standard EOP-001-2.1b Requirement R6.58

57Id. at 7.

58Id. at 7-8.

Commission Determination

43. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability's comments that the 30 day review period in Requirement R3.1 is unduly onerous. No reliability coordinator other than Peak Reliability expressed concern about the 30 day review period for operating plans in Requirement R3.1. NERC explains that transmission operators and balancing authorities must update their operating plans on an “ongoing and as-needed basis.” 59 The need for registered entities to update operating plans to address evolving bulk electric system conditions should prevent reliability coordinators from being overwhelmed or unduly burdened by operating plan submissions. However, if Peak Reliability experiences an “end of the year spike in workload,” 60 as a reliability coordinator, Peak Reliability can adjust its resource allocation to accommodate such known “spikes” in activity. Accordingly, we conclude the 30 day review period in Requirement R3.1 is reasonable and reject Peak Reliability's recommendation for language requiring a “mutually agreed predetermined schedule.”

59See NERC EOP Petition at 9.

60See Peak Reliability Comments at 5-6.

44. Additionally, we believe that Peak Reliability's concern regarding the extent of reliability coordinator Operating Plan review for “compatibility and interdependency” under Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirement 3.1.1 is misplaced. Based on the record before us, particularly the Standard Drafting Team's decision to require reliability coordinators to review rather than approve operating plans, and the ongoing nature of emergency planning, we conclude that Requirement R3.1.1 contemplates high level assessments focused on the coordination of operating plans between and among transmission operators and balancing authorities.61 Moreover, while Peak Reliability may request that NERC (e.g., through a standard authorization request or “SAR”) include a provision in EOP-011-1 to require coordination among transmission operators and balancing authorities prior to submitting an operating plan for reliability coordinator review, we are not persuaded to direct NERC to develop such a provision.

61See NERC EOP Petition, Exhibit G (Summary of Development History and Complete Record of Development) at 1166 (the Standard Drafting Team indicates that the provision is intended to require the reliability coordinator review of deficiencies, inconsistencies or conflicts between operating plans that would cause further system degradation during emergency conditions).

B. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 1. Retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 NOPR

45. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 and the retirement of PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1, the Commission was not persuaded that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R4 is an adequate replacement for currently-effective PRC-022-1, which contains requirements specifically addressing misoperations. Rather, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 would remain in effect until an acceptable replacement Reliability Standard is in place to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment.

Comments

46. NERC states that, on June 9, 2015, it filed proposed Reliability Standards PRC-010-2 and PRC-004-5 as part of its UVLS Phase II Petition (Project 2008-02.2), which includes requirements and applicability criteria related to UVLS misoperations.62 NERC explains that its filing requests that the Commission approve Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 concurrently with the Commission's action on Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “to ensure an integrated and coordinated approach to UVLS Programs and fill the gap in Reliability Standard coverage that might be perceived through retirement of PRC-022-1.” 63 EEI agrees, stating that NERC's filing of proposed Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 address the Commission's concerns expressed in the NOPR.64

62 Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2, (Docket No. RD15-5-000).

63 NERC Comments at 8.

64 EEI Comments at 7.

Commission Determination

47. We agree with NERC and EEI that the Delegated Letter Order approval of Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 in Docket No. RD15-5-000 concurrent with this Final Rule precludes the need to retain currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-022-1.65 Accordingly, we find that Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 can be retired without creating a gap in coverage with regard to UVLS protective relay misoperations and equipment performance evaluations.

65See Delegated Letter Order issued November 19, 2915.

2. The Term “BES Subsystem” and Related Diagram NOPR

48. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification of the meaning of NERC's use of the term “BES subsystem” in a diagram illustrating a UVLS system that would not be included in the definition of UVLS Program if the consequences of the contingency do not impact the bulk electric system, and whether it would be considered a Remedial Action Scheme.66

66See NOPR, 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 at P 27 (including diagram).

Comments

49. NERC comments that the term “BES subsystem” and accompanying diagram are “intended to demonstrate that whether PRC-010-1 applies to a UVLS system depends on whether the UVLS system is used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting areas of the BES, leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse or Cascading.” 67 NERC also states that “the term `BES subsystem' is a shorthand reference to an area of the BES that a Registered Entity is responsible for, consistent with its obligations under mandatory Reliability Standards. This reference does not revise the Commission-approved definition of `Bulk Electric System' or create a new term.” 68

67 NERC Comments at 6-7.

68Id. at 7.

50. NERC explains that the diagram “is not intended to necessarily illustrate a centrally controlled UVLS (considered a [Remedial Action Scheme]), but to illustrate how Registered Entities should evaluate whether the term UVLS Program and proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 applies to a UVLS system.” 69 NERC points out that, if a UVLS system in the “BES subsystem” is used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the BES (leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading), the system would fall under the new definition of UVLS Program (or RAS if centrally controlled) and thus in the scope of Reliability Standard PRC-010-1.70

69Id.

70Id.

51. EEI states that the example of “BES subsystem” in the “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition” does not represent a centrally controlled UVLS and therefore would not be considered a Remedial Action Scheme. EEI explains that the term UVLS Program “is for a scheme that consists of distributed relays and controls, not for a scheme that is centrally controlled. The key point is that for a UVLS system to fall under the definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program, it must be used to protect the BES against voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.” 71 EEI also notes that the term “BES subsystem” is not intended to be a new NERC term, but rather “was used in the example to illustrate a possible localized undervoltage contingency on a very small portion of the BES but not a contingency that impacts a larger area of the BES that could result in voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.” 72

71 EEI Comments at 8.

72Id.

Commission Determination

52. Based on the explanations provided above, we determine that a directive for further modification of the example of “BES subsystem” and related diagram in NERC's “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition” to ensure consistency with the Commission-approved definition of “bulk electric system” proposed in the NOPR is not necessary. Rather, we are persuaded that EEI's concern with the diagram is addressed by NERC's explanation that, depending on the role of a particular UVLS system, the diagram could illustrate an example of a UVLS Program or a centrally-controlled Remedial Action Scheme.73

73Id.

C. Other Issues Raised By Commenters 1. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1—Applicability

53. Peak Reliability asserts that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “does not adequately address the operation of UVLS Programs, as it does not apply to the NERC functional entities that operate the Bulk Electric System,” particularly, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities.74 Peak Reliability contends that UVLS Programs should be included in operational planning and real-time assessments, and that all entities responsible for operating the bulk electric system must be given access to UVLS Program databases.75 Further, Peak Reliability requests that the Commission direct NERC to explain why Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 and Reliability Standard IRO-009-1 apply to different functional entities (since the purpose of both is to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading outages), and recommends that the treatment of UVLS in operations planning and real-time assessments be addressed.76

74 Peak Reliability Comments at 9.

75Id. at 9-10.

76Id. at 11-12.

54. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability's assertion that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 should apply to reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities. Rather, as NERC explains “[t]he applicability includes both the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner because either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner and Planning Coordinator.” 77 As NERC's rationale above indicates, the applicability section of the Reliability Standard identities the functional entities responsible for the design, operation and control of UVLS Programs and related equipment.

77 NERC EOP Petition at 15, and id. Ex. D (Order No. 672 Criteria) at 2-3.

55. While Peak Reliability seeks to expand applicability to functional entities so that UVLS Program databases would be shared with reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities, we believe that this need to expand applicability is unfounded. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R8, provides that other functional entities with a reliability need can request UVLS data, and that such requests must be answered in 30 days.

56. Nor are we persuaded by Peak Reliability's argument that UVLS programs should be considered in operations planning and real-time operations. We understand that Peak Reliability refers to the consideration of UVLS programs in the derivation of Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROLs) for Category B contingencies as defined in the currently-effective transmission planning standard TPL-002-0b (commonly known as N-1 contingencies under normal system operation).78 With this understanding, we disagree with Peak Reliability on the relevance of using UVLS in the derivation of IROLs for N-1 contingencies. The 2003 Canada-United States Blackout Report stated that “[s]afety nets should not be relied upon to establish transfer limits.” 79 This statement is consistent with the performance criteria established in TPL-002-0b and TPL-001-4, which generally prohibit the loss of non-consequential load for certain N-1 contingencies.80 We conclude that UVLS programs under PRC-010-1 are examples of such “safety nets” and should not be tools used by bulk electric system operators to calculate operating limits for N-1 contingencies. Likewise, with this understanding, there is no imperative to make PRC-010-1 applicable to reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities.

78 The Commission-approved Version 4 standard, TPL-001-4, will replace TPL-002-0b on January 1, 2016. See Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Order No. 786, 145 FERC ¶ 61,051 (2013).

79 2003 Blackout Report at 109.

80See TPL-002-0b, Table 1, footnote b and TPL-001-4, Table 1, Footnote 12.

57. Peak Reliability comments that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “creates some confusion of the applicability of UVLS Programs due to the similarities, and apparent overlap, in the definitions of UVLS Programs and IROLs.” 81 We disagree. Peak Reliability's comparison of UVLS Programs with establishing and operating within IROLs is misplaced because UVLS Programs and IROLs represent separate and distinct approaches to system security. UVLS Programs act as safety nets for contingencies more severe than N-1 contingencies, such as the simultaneous loss of two single circuits or a double-circuit line which are both Category C contingencies permitting loss of non-consequential firm load.82 In contrast, the NERC Glossary defines IROLs as “[a] System Operating Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Electric System.” This corresponds with the TPL-004-1 provisions requiring that the system must remain stable when experiencing an N-1 contingency (such as Category B or P1 contingencies).83 In sum, we disagree with Peak Reliability's premise regarding similarities, and overlaps, in the definition of UVLS programs and IROLs.

81 Peak Reliability Comments at 11.

82 The TPL Standards require that the system remain stable and that cascading and uncontrolled islanding shall not occur for any Category B or C contingency (i.e., currently-effective TPL Standards, N-1 and N-2 contingencies) or for any Category P1 through P7 contingency (i.e., TPL-001-4, N-1 and N-2 contingencies.) See Table 1 of any of the TPL Standards.

83See TPL Standards, Table 1.

2. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 —Appropriate Level of Detail in UVLS Program Assessment

58. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5 obligate planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform an assessment of their UVLS program in various circumstances. Idaho Power contends that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5, do not “specifically state what must be included in the assessment, as was included in PRC-022-1 R1.1-4” and, therefore, do not sufficiently explain what applicable entities must include in UVLS Program assessments.84

84 Idaho Power Comments at 2.

59. We disagree with Idaho Power. Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 requires applicable entities to “analyze and document all UVLS operations and misoperations,” and specifically mentions set points and tripping times and a summary of the findings. In contrast, Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 Requirement R3, requires planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform comprehensive assessments of their UVLS Programs at least once every 5 years. Each assessment “shall include, but is not limited to, studies and analyses that evaluate whether . . . the UVLS Program resolves the identified undervoltage issues for which the UVLS Program is designed [and] the UVLS Program is integrated through coordination with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems.” Requirement R4 requires applicable entities to assess whether UVLS programs resolve undervoltage issues associated with voltage excursions triggering UVLS programs. Pursuant to Requirement R5, planning coordinators and transmission planners must develop a corrective action plan to address UVLS program deficiencies identified during assessments performed under Requirements R3 and R4. We conclude that the comprehensive nature of the assessments required under Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is sufficient, and precludes the need to include the specific items listed in PRC-022-1, Requirement R1.

3. Definition of Special Protection System

60. ITC supports the approval of the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme. ITC points out that NERC proposes to move to a single definition, Remedial Action Scheme, to eliminate the use of two terms, i.e., Special Protection System.85 Thus, ITC requests that the Commission direct NERC to remove the definition of Special Protection System from the NERC Glossary to eliminate any potential for confusion.

85 ITC Comment at 3.

61. We deny ITC's request that the Commission direct NERC to remove the definition of “Special Protection System” from the NERC Glossary. In its RAS Petition, NERC states that it “will continue to modify the NERC Reliability Standards until all of them reference only the defined term Remedial Action Scheme. At that time, the definition of Special Protection System will be retired.” 86 We are satisfied with NERC's approach of retiring the term “Special Protection System” once the Reliability Standards are fully updated to reference the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme.

86 NERC RAS Petition at 5.

V. Information Collection Statement

62. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).87 OMB's regulations require approval of certain informational collection requirements imposed by agency rules.88 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

87 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

88 5 CFR 1320.11.

63. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The NOPR solicited comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques. No comments were received.

A. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1

64. Public Reporting Burden: As of March 2015, there are 105 balancing authorities, 11 reliability coordinators and 329 transmission operators registered with NERC. These registered entities will have to comply with 6-8 new requirements in the new proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. As proposed, each registered balancing authority will have to comply with Requirements R2, R4, and, under certain circumstances, R5. Each reliability coordinator will have to comply with Requirements R1 and its subparts, R2 and its subparts, R3 and its subparts, R5 and R6. Each transmission operator will have to comply with Requirements R1 and its subparts and R4.

65. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 replaces a combined total of 40 requirements or subparts that are found in Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-003.1 and EOP-003-2. These three Reliability Standards are to be retired, concurrent with the effective date of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. Accordingly, the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 do not create any new burdens for applicable balancing authorities or transmission operators because the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 are already burdens or tasks imposed on this set of registered entities by Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-003.1 and EOP-003-2 under FERC-725A (1902-0244).

66. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 requires reliability coordinators to perform the additional tasks of reviewing, correcting, and coordinating their balancing authorities' and transmission operators' operating procedures for emergency conditions. The Commission estimates that this will add approximately 1,500 man-hours per year for each reliability coordinator as described in detail in the following table:

RM15-7-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP-011-1) Number of
  • applicable
  • registered
  • entities
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden
  • (hours) and cost per
  • response
  • Total annual burden hours
  • and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) RC tasks necessary for EOP-011-1 compliance 11 1 21 1,500
  • 89 $92,387
  • 16,500
  • $1,016,257
  • $92,387
    B. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1

    Public Reporting Burden: As of April 2015, there are 467 registered distribution providers and 50 transmission providers that are not overlapping in their registration with the distribution provider registration. We estimate that five percent of all distribution providers (23) and transmission providers (3) have under voltage load shedding programs that fall under the Reliability Standard. The Reliability Standard is applicable to planning coordinators and transmission planners, distribution providers, and transmission owners. However, only distribution providers and transmission owners would be responsible for the incremental compliance burden under Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R2, as described in detail in the following table:

    89 The 1,500 hour figure is broken into 1300 hours at the engineer wage rate and 200 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates assume that the engineer's wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk's wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17-2071 (engineer) and 43-4071 (clerk).

    RM15-12-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-010-1) 90 Number of
  • applicable
  • registered
  • entities
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden
  • (hours) and cost per
  • response
  • Total annual burden hours
  • and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) DP—Requirement 2 23 1 23 91 36
  • $1,960.32
  • 828
  • $45,087.36
  • 1,960
    TP—Requirement 2 3 1 3 92 36
  • $1,960.32
  • 108
  • $5,880.96
  • 1,960
    DP—R2 Data Retention 23 1 23 12
  • 93 $367.92
  • 276
  • $8,462.16
  • 368
    TP—R2 Data Retention 3 1 3 12
  • $367.92
  • 36
  • $1,103.76
  • 368
    Total $60,534.24
    C. Remedial Action Scheme Revisions

    67. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission approved the definition of Special Protection System (Remedial Action Scheme) in Order No. 693. We approve a revision to the previously approved definition. The revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and related Reliability Standards are not expected to result in changes to the scope of systems covered by the Reliability Standards and other Reliability Standards that include the term Remedial Action Scheme. Therefore, the Commission does not expect the revisions to affect applicable entities' current reporting burden.

    90 DP = distribution provider and TP = transmission provider.

    91 The 36 hour figure is broken into 24 hours at the engineer wage rate and 12 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates assume that the engineer's wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk's wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17-2071 (engineer) and 43-4071 (clerk).

    92Id.

    93 Clerk's wage rate is used for managing data retention.

    FERC-725G4, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding).

    FERC-725S, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations).

    Action: Proposed Collection of Information.

    OMB Control No: OMB Control No. 1902-0270 (FERC-725S); OMB Control No. 1902-XXXX (FERC-725G4).

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency of Responses: One time and on-going.

    Necessity of the Information: The revision to NERC's definition of the term bulk electric system implements the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations and Protection and Control Reliability Standards.

    68. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to Reliability Standards PRC-010-1 and EOP-011-1 and made a determination that the requirements of these Reliability Standards are necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

    69. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

    70. Comments concerning the information collections in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: [email protected] Please reference the docket number of this Final Rule (Docket Nos. RM15-13-000, RM15-12-000, and RM15-7-000) in your submission.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    71. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 94 generally requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    94 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

    72. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 11 entities (reliability coordinators). The remaining 434 entities (balancing authorities and transmission operators and a combination thereof) will maintain the existing levels of burden. Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 7 of the 11 entities are small entities, or 63.63 percent of the respondents affected by this Reliability Standard.95

    95 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with a size threshold based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR, we are using a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).

    73. On average, each small entity affected may have a one-time cost of $92,387 representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 1,500 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer wages) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement.

    74. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 26 entities (distribution providers and transmission providers or a combination thereof). Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 8 of the 26 entities are small entities, or 30.77 percent of the respondents affected by this Reliability Standard.

    75. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $1,960, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 36 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer wages) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement. Regarding the revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and the related Reliability Standards including the revised definition, as discussed above, the Commission estimates that proposals will have no cost impact on applicable entities, including any small entities.

    76. The Commission estimates that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 in this Final Rule impose an additional burden on a total of 37 entities. FERC's small business data indicates that 15 of the 37 respondents are small entities, or 40.54 percent of the respondents affected by these proposed Reliability Standards. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $92,387 and $1,960 (EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 respectively), representing a one-time review of the program for each entity. We do not consider these costs to be a significant economic impact on small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    VII. Environmental Analysis

    77. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.96 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.97 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

    96Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    97 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

    VIII. Document Availability

    78. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    79. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

    80. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    81. This Final Rule is effective January 25, 2016. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.98 The Commission will submit the final rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office.

    98See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    By the Commission.

    Issued: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29971 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2015-0006; T.D. TTB-131; Ref: Notice No. 150] RIN 1513-AC18 Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; Treasury decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 49,815-acre “Eagle Foothills” viticultural area in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The viticultural area lies entirely within the established Snake River Valley viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective December 28, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dominique Christianson, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 278.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Eagle Foothills Petition

    TTB received a petition from Martha Cunningham, owner of the 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, on behalf of the local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Eagle Foothills” AVA in Gem and Ada Counties, Idaho. The proposed AVA is immediately north of the city of Eagle and is approximately 10 miles northwest of the city of Boise. The Eagle Foothills AVA is located entirely within the established Snake River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.208) and does not overlap with any other existing or proposed AVA. The original proposed name for the AVA was “Willow Creek Idaho.” However, TTB determined that the petition did not sufficiently demonstrate that the region is known by that name. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a request to change the proposed AVA name to “Eagle Foothills.”

    The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA contains approximately 49,815 acres, with 9 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 67 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. The petition states that an additional 4 acres will soon be added to an existing vineyard and that an additional 7 commercial vineyards covering approximately 472 acres are planned within the next few years.

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The proposed AVA is located within the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion of Idaho. This ecoregion is defined as an arid, sparsely populated region of rolling foothills, benches, and alluvial fans underlain by alkaline lake bed deposits. A network of seasonal creeks flowing southwesterly through the proposed AVA have created deep gulches and a rugged terrain that has a variety of slope aspects favorable to the vineyard owners. The elevation within the proposed AVA ranges from 2,490 feet to approximately 3,400 feet, with an average elevation of 2,900 feet. The high elevations enable cold air to drain from the proposed AVA and pool within the lower surrounding elevations, resulting in fewer damaging frosts within the proposed AVA. The cool climate and relatively short growing season are suitable for growing early- to mid-season varieties of grapes such as Chardonnay, Pinot Gris, and Riesling. The proposed AVA contains a variety of soils, but loams, sandy loams, coarse sandy loams, and stony loams are predominant and are notable for their large, irregularly shaped, coarse grains. Due to the grains' irregular shapes, “pockets” of oxygen form in the soil, which promote healthy root growth and allow for rapid water drainage.

    Compared with the proposed AVA, the Emmett Valley and Payette River Plain to the north are lower, flatter, and have greater population density than the proposed AVA. Due to the lower elevations, the region to the north has a warmer climate and a longer growing season than the proposed AVA. The soils in the region to the north of the proposed AVA are derived from active flood plain alluvium. These soils have a finer, more uniform texture and greater water-holding capacity than the soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA.

    East of the proposed AVA is the mountainous region known as the Boise Front, which has higher elevations. Due to the higher elevations, the region to the east has a shorter growing season and cooler growing season temperatures than the proposed AVA. The soils of the Boise Front are predominantly composed of granite and volcanic materials and lack the sedimentary materials found in the soils of the proposed AVA.

    The Boise River Plain is to the south of the proposed AVA, and this region has lower elevations, shallow slope plains, and a longer growing season than the proposed AVA. The soils in this region are similar to the soils north of the proposed AVA, in that they are derived from flood plain alluvium and are finer than the soils within the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA.

    Finally, the region to the west is also within the Boise River Plain which, as mentioned previously, has a lower elevation and warmer temperatures, which provide longer growing seasons than are found within the proposed AVA. Furthermore, when compared to the proposed AVA, the soils in the region to the west are fine-grained and the bedrock has a greater depth.

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    TTB published Notice No. 150 in the Federal Register on April 14, 2015 (80 FR 19908), proposing to establish the Eagle Foothills AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and for a detailed comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 150.

    In Notice No. 150, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA's location within the existing Snake River Valley AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiate it from the existing Snake River Valley AVA. Finally, TTB requested comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Snake River Valley AVA that the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA should no longer be part of the established AVA. The comment period closed on June 15, 2015. TTB received no comments in response to Notice No. 150.

    TTB Determination

    After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Eagle Foothills AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Eagle Foothills” AVA in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

    TTB has also determined that the Eagle Foothills AVA will remain part of the established Snake River Valley AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 150, the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located along the eastern edge of the Snake River Valley AVA and shares the same broad characteristics of this AVA, in that both regions are semiarid and have vineyards that are planted on slopes to maximize sunlight exposure and minimize the risk of frost. However, the Eagle Foothills AVA receives several more inches of precipitation per year and has a slightly longer growing season. Additionally, the Snake River Valley AVA contains a large variety of diverse soils, unlike the proposed AVA which has fairly uniform soil characteristics throughout.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the Eagle Foothills AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

    With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Eagle Foothills,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Eagle Foothills” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.

    The establishment of the Eagle Foothills AVA will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Snake River Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Snake River Valley AVA will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Eagle Foothills AVA will allow vintners to use “Eagle Foothills” and “Snake River Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Eagle Foothills AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Dominique Christianson of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    The Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.252 to read as follows:
    § 9.252 Eagle Foothills.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Eagle Foothills”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Eagle Foothills” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The 6 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Eagle Foothills viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Southwest Emmett, Idaho, 1970;

    (2) Southeast Emmett, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;

    (3) Pearl, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;

    (4) Eagle, Idaho, 1998;

    (5) Star, Idaho, 1953; and

    (6) Middleton, Idaho, 1958; photorevised 1971.

    (c) Boundary. The Eagle Foothills viticultural area is located in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The boundary of the Eagle Foothills viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The beginning point is on the Southwest Emmett map at the intersection of the Ada, Gem, and Canyon County lines at the southwestern corner of section 31, T6N/R1W.

    (2) From the beginning point, proceed north along the western boundary of sections 31 and 30 to the northwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then

    (3) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,109-foot elevation point near the southwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then

    (4) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Southeast Emmett map, to the marked 3,230-foot elevation point in section 22, T6N/R1W; then

    (5) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,258-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then

    (6) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the 3,493-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then

    (7) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the 3,481-foot elevation point in section 13, T6N/R1W; then

    (8) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the intersection of the marked 4-wheel drive trail with the R1W range line; then

    (9) Proceed north along the R1W range line to its first intersection with the 3,400-foor elevation contour; then

    (10) Proceed east along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Pearl map, then continuing easterly, then southerly, along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing Schiller Creek, the North and South Forks of Willow Creek, and Big Gulch Creek, to the first intersection of the 3,400-foot contour line with the R1E/R2E range line, which forms the eastern boundary of section 13, T5N/R1E; then

    (11) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the marked 3,613-foot elevation in point Section 18, T5N/R2E; then

    (12) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,426-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then

    (13) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,416-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then

    (14) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,119-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then

    (15) Proceed south in a straight line to the marked 3,366-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then

    (16) Proceed southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,372-foot elevation point in Section 26, T5N/R1E; then

    (17) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing back onto the Pearl map, to the marked 3,228-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then

    (18) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,205-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then

    (19) Proceed south in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,163-foot elevation point in Section 27, T5N/R1E; then

    (20) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 2,958-foot elevation point in Section 28, T5N/R1E; then

    (21) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the northeast corner of section 32, T5N/R1E; then

    (22) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of Section 32 to the point where the boundary joins Pearl Road, then continue south along Pearl Road to the intersection of the road with Beacon Road; then

    (23) Proceed west along Beacon Road, crossing onto the Star map, to the intersection of Beacon Road with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as North Wing Road at the southern boundary of section 32, T5N/R1W; then

    (24) Proceed south along North Wing Road to the intersection of the road with New Hope Road in Section 5, T4N/R1W; then

    (25) Proceed west along New Hope Road, crossing onto the Middleton map, to the intersection of the road with the Ada-Canyon County line; then

    (26) Proceed north along the Ada-Canyon County line, crossing onto the Southwest Emmett map, to the beginning point.

    Signed: October 7, 2015. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: October 28, 2015. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-29986 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099; FRL-9936-50] Aureobasidium Pullulans Strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation amends an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 to include residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Bio-ferm GmbH submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment of the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance that includes food commodities that are treated post-harvest. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 under FFDCA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 25, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 25, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 25, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities when applied pre-harvest and used in accordance with good agricultural practices was established and published in the Federal Register of February 15, 2012 (77 FR 8731) (FRL-9337-3). In the Federal Register of July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42462) (FRL-9929-13), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F8342) by bio-ferm GmbH, Technologiezentrum Tulln, Technopark 1, Tulln, 3430, Austria. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1312 be amended by expanding the current exemption to also include food commodities that are treated post-harvest. Therefore an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities was proposed. The Notice of Filing referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner bio-ferm GmbH, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption, and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the October 15, 2015, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) considerations for Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941”. This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for the reasons contained in the October 15, 2015, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) considerations for Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941” and because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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

    V. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 5, 2015. Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Revise § 180.1312 to read as follows:
    § 180.1312 Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2015-29888 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640; FRL-9936-71] Saflufenacil; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of saflufenacil in or on pomegranate. BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 25, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 25, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 25, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015, (80 FR 7559) (FRL-9921-94), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP) 4F8305 by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.649 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, saflufenacil (2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methylethyl) amino]sulfonyl]benzamide) and its metabolites, in or on pomegranate at 0.03 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    The effects observed following repeated oral exposures to saflufenacil are consistent with the proposed mode of toxicity involving inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) in mammals, resulting in disruption of heme biosynthesis. Toxicological effects from subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice and dogs consisted of decreased hematological parameters (RBC, Ht, MCV, MCH, and MCHC) at approximately the same dose level (13-39 mg/kg/day), except in the case of the dog, where the effects were seen at a slightly higher dose (50-100 mg/kg/day). In line with the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) findings suggesting that male rats achieve a greater systemic exposure than females, males were the most sensitive sex in mice and rats, with LOAELs approximately 3-4X lower than their female counterparts. The hematological effects resulting from oral exposures to saflufenacil occurred around the same dose level from short- through long-term exposures without increasing in severity. Toxic effects were also seen in the liver (increased organ weight, centrilobular fatty change, lymphoid infiltrate) in mice, the spleen (increased organ weight and extramedullary hematopoiesis) in rats, and in both of these organs (increased iron storage in the liver and extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen) in dogs. These effects also occurred around the same dose level from short- through long-term exposures without a progression in severity.

    Evidence for increased pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility was noted from the developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. Decreased fetal body weights and increased skeletal variations occurred at doses (20 mg/kg/day) that were not maternally toxic in the developmental study in rats. Similarly, in rabbits, increased liver porphyrins in fetuses were observed at doses (200 mg/kg/day) that were not maternally toxic. In the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, there was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility based on an increased number of stillborn pups, decreased pup viability and lactation indices, decreased pre-weaning body-weight and/or body-weight gain, and changes in hematological parameters at the same dose level as less severe maternal effects consisting of decrements in food intake, body-weight, body-weight gain, and changes in organ weights and hematological parameters indicative of anemia.

    In an acute neurotoxicity (ACN) study in rats, a decrease in motor activity was observed on the day of dosing at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg/day) in males only. However, the finding was not accompanied by any neuropathological changes and was considered a reflection of a mild and transient general systemic toxicity and not a substance-specific neurotoxic effect. In the subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study, systemic toxicity (anemia) was seen at 1,000 ppm (66.2 mg/kg/day) and 1,350 ppm (101 mg/kg/day) in males and females, respectively. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in either the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity study.

    In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, saflufenacil did not induce any type of dermal or systemic toxicity up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.

    Based on the results of acute toxicity studies, saflufenacil was ranked low for acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation route of exposure. It was not classified as a dermal irritant or dermal sensitizer.

    In a 28-day immunotoxicity study in mice, saflufenacil failed to induce toxicity specific to the immune system at the highest dose tested (i.e., 52 mg/kg bw/day).

    Saflufenacil was weakly clastogenic in the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay in V79 cells in the presence of S9 activation; however, the response was not evident in the absence of S9 activation. It was neither mutagenic in bacterial cells nor clastogenic in rodents in vivo. Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no evidence of increased incidence of tumors at the tested doses. Saflufenacil is classified as “not likely carcinogenic to humans.”

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by saflufenacil as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Saflufenacil. “Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Tolerances for Residues in/on Pomegranate” pgs. 26-30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for saflufenacil used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Saflufenacil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) NOAEL = 500 mg/kg bw
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 5 mg/kg
  • aPAD = 5 mg/kg
  • Acute Neurotoxicity Study (rat). LOAEL = 2,000 mg/kg bw based on decreased motor activity representing mild and transient systemic toxicity in males.
    Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 4.6 mg/kg/day
  • UFA =10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.046mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.046 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic/Carcinogenicity (mouse). LOAEL = 13.8 mg/kg bw/day based on decreased red blood cells, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and porphyria observed in the satellite group.
    FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to saflufenacil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing saflufenacil tolerances in 40 CFR 180.649. EPA assessed dietary exposures from saflufenacil in food as follows:

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

    Such effects were identified for saflufenacil. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA used an unrefined approach by assuming that 100% of the crop is treated and that residues are present at the tolerance-level or at tolerance-levels adjusted to account for the residues of concern for risk assessment for all foods. EPA also used default processing factors using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.8.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the same conservative assumptions that were used for the acute dietary assessment noted above.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that saflufenacil does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

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

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for saflufenacil in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of saflufenacil. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of saflufenacil for acute exposures are estimated to be 133 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 69.2 ppb for ground water.

    The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 120 ppb for surface water and 51.5 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 133 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 120 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Saflufenacil is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

    EPA has not found saflufenacil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and saflufenacil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that saflufenacil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. As discussed in III.A., there is evidence of increased pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. The concern for increased susceptibility following prenatal or postnatal exposure is low because clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects seen in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study. Further, the dose-response relationship for the effects of concern are also well characterized and being used for assessing risks. The point of departure for risk assessments would be protective of the developmental and offspring effects.

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

    i. The toxicity database for saflufenacil is complete.

    ii. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity study. The decrease in motor activity observed in the acute neurotoxicity study on the day of dosing at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg/day) in males is considered a reflection of a mild and transient general systemic toxicity and not a substance-specific neurotoxic effect. No neurotoxic effects were seen in the sub-chronic neurotoxicity study.

    iii. The concern for increased susceptibility following prenatal or postnatal exposure is low because clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects seen in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study. Further, the dose-response relationship for the effects of concern are also well characterized and being used for assessing risks. The POD for risk assessments would be protective of the developmental and offspring effects.

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

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to saflufenacil will occupy less than 1% of the aPAD for all infants (<1-year old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to saflufenacil from food and water will utilize 20% of the cPAD for all infants (<1-year old) the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for saflufenacil.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water. Since there are no registered or proposed residential uses for saflufenacil that would result in short or intermediate-term residential exposures, and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short and intermediate-term risk for saflufenacil.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, saflufenacil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) Method D0603/02) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for saflufenacil on pomegranate. Therefore, harmonization of MRLs and U.S. tolerances is not an issue at this time.

    C. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments to the docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0640; however, only one of these public submissions was in response to the Notice of Filing for PP# 4F8305, while the remaining comment pertained to an unrelated petition in the Federal Register notice. For PP# 4F8305, the commenter stated that they are in support of actions to set tolerance levels for pesticides on the food we eat and that we are taking a step in the right direction by making it safer for human consumption by placing more regulations on pesticide chemicals.

    EPA agrees with the commenter and will continue to regulate pesticides under the legal framework provided by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which allows EPA to assess the risk of pesticides and set tolerance levels for those pesticides on food commodities as deemed necessary to protect human health while still providing tools for growers so that they can meet the ever-growing food demands of this country and others.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of saflufenacil, (2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide) and its metabolites, in or on pomegranate at 0.03 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.649, add alphabetically the entry to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 180.649 Saflufenacil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Pomegranate 0.03 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2015-29889 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 80 [Docket No. CDC-2015-0062; NIOSH-286] RIN 0920-AA55 Occupational Safety and Health Research and Related Activities: Removal of Regulations Regarding Administrative Functions, Practices, and Procedures AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    With this action, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) removes its regulations pertaining to fees for direct training in occupational safety and health conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As a part of the retrospective review conducted by all Federal agencies, HHS has determined that these regulations are no longer in use by NIOSH and should be removed.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Ave., MS: C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855)818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 13, 2015 (80 FR 48473), HHS invited interested persons or organizations to submit written views, recommendations, and data regarding the removal of part 80. We received no comments on this rule.

    II. Statutory Authority

    HHS promulgated part 80 of title 42 to facilitate Section 21(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 670(a)(1)), which authorizes the Director of NIOSH to conduct educational programs to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of the OSH Act. Part 80 established tuition fees for such training, as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 483a (31 U.S.C. 9701, as revised by Public Law 97-258, September 13, 1982), which permits agencies to “prescribe regulations establishing the charge for service or thing of value provided by the agency.” In accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13563, HHS conducted a retrospective analysis of its existing rules, determined Part 80 to be obsolete, and is hereby removing Part 80 from Title 42.

    III. Summary of Final Rule

    The provisions in Part 80 establish the NIOSH policies with respect to the charging of fees for direct training in occupational safety and health. Because NIOSH no longer offers direct training programs, these provisions are no longer needed. Removing Part 80 from Title 42 will have no effect on NIOSH procedures or practices, including the NIOSH funding of the Education and Research Centers for Occupational Safety and Health. This action is being done in accordance with Executive Order 13563, section 6, which requires that Federal agencies conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules. In conducting the analysis, HHS discovered that the Part 80 provisions were outdated.

    IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    This final rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. With this action, HHS is removing part 80 from title 42. Because this final rule is entirely administrative and does not affect the economic impact, cost, or policies of any activities authorized by title 42, HHS has not prepared an economic analysis and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. Because no substantive changes will be made to 42 CFR part 80 as a result of this action, HHS certifies that this rule has “no significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities” within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires an agency to invite public comment on, and to obtain OMB approval of, any regulation that requires 10 or more people to report information to the agency or to keep certain records. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements; thus, HHS has determined that the PRA does not apply to this rule.

    D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), HHS reported the promulgation of this rule to Congress prior to its effective date.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector “other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.” For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this final rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased annual expenditures in excess of $100 million by State, local or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

    F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice)

    This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.

    G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    HHS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this final rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no environmental health and safety effect on children.

    I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this final rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.

    J. Plain Writing Act of 2010

    Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the final rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.

    Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble and under the authorities 29 U.S.C. 671, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and 42 U.S.C. 216(b), the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR chapter I by removing part 80.

    PART 80—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 1. Remove and reserve part 80. Dated: November 16, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29827 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8411] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of
  • sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective map date Date certain Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region II New York: Hoosick, Town of, Rensselaer County 361154 December 16, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1987, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp January 6, 2016 January 6, 2016. Hoosick Falls, Village of, Rensselaer County 360674 December 26, 1974, Emerg; May 16, 1980, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pittstown, Town of, Rensselaer County 361166 May 20, 1975, Emerg; February 1, 1988, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Schaghticoke, Town of, Rensselaer County 361168 January 21, 1976, Emerg; July 16, 1984, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Schaghticoke, Village of, Rensselaer County 361058 December 27, 1979, Emerg; June 11, 1982, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Valley Falls, Village of, Rensselaer County 361469 December 19, 1975, Emerg; June 5, 1985, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region VI Texas: Austin, City of, Travis and Williamson Counties 480624 May 9, 1975, Emerg; September 2, 1981, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Bastrop County, Unincorporated Areas 481193 September 12, 1978, Emerg; August 19, 1991, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Mustang Ridge, City of, Caldwell and Travis Counties 481687 N/A, Emerg; June 15, 2000, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Rollingwood, City of, Travis County 481029 February 3, 1975, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Travis County, Unincorporated Areas 481026 January 29, 1976, Emerg; April 1, 1982, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. West Lake Hills, City of, Travis County 481030 March 10, 1976, Emerg; July 17, 1978, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region IX California: Palos Verdes Estates, City of, Los Angeles County 060145 January 29, 1971, Emerg; September 7, 1984, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Torrance, City of, Los Angeles County 060165 June 26, 1975, Emerg; December 18, 1979, Reg; January 6, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. ......do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp—Suspnsion.
    Dated: November 12, 2015. Roy E. Wright Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30045 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8409] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of
  • sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region III Pennsylvania: Carroll, Township of, York County 422216 September 16, 1974, Emerg; March 2, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp Dec. 16, 2015 Dec. 16, 2015. Chanceford, Township of, York County 422217 January 13, 1976, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Codorus, Township of, York County 421142 March 26, 1974, Emerg; July 5, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Conewago, Township of, York County 420918 July 5, 1973, Emerg; March 18, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Cross Roads, Borough of, York County 422209 July 12, 1976, Emerg; June 1, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Delta, Borough of, York County 422211 January 20, 1976, Emerg; September 1, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Dillsburg, Borough of, York County 420919 September 16, 1975, Emerg; September 28, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Dover, Borough of, York County 422569 December 8, 1975, Emerg; December 19, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Dover, Township of, York County 420920 March 9, 1973, Emerg; March 2, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. East Hopewell, Township of, York County 422218 April 16, 1981, Emerg; April 16, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. East Manchester, Township of, York County 420921 June 6, 1973, Emerg; November 19, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Fairview, Township of, York County 420923 September 8, 1972, Emerg; February 15, 1978, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Fawn, Township of, York County 422219 March 19, 1976, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Felton, Borough of, York County 420922 December 17, 1973, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Franklin, Township of, York County 422220 July 31, 1975, Emerg; January 19, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Glen Rock, Borough of, York County 420924 March 16, 1973, Emerg; July 16, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Goldsboro, Borough of, York County 420925 June 6, 1973, Emerg; February 15, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Hallam, Borough of, York County 420926 August 7, 1973, Emerg; February 15, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Hanover, Borough of, York County 422212 July 2, 1974, Emerg; January 6, 1982, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Heidelberg, Township of, York County 422221 February 18, 1976, Emerg; September 30, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Hellam, Township of, York County 420927 June 27, 1973, Emerg; March 18, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Hopewell, Township of, York County 422222 April 21, 1975, Emerg; September 16, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Jackson, Township of, York County 422223 March 10, 1976, Emerg; September 30, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Jacobus, Borough of, York County 420928 August 13, 1975, Emerg; June 30, 1976, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Lewisberry, Borough of, York County 420929 January 27, 1976, Emerg; November 17, 1982, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Lower Chanceford, Township of, York County 420930 June 6, 1973, Emerg; February 15, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Lower Windsor, Township of, York County 421187 August 29, 1975, Emerg; March 2, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Manchester, Borough of, York County 422747 N/A, Emerg; September 25, 2010, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Manchester, Township of, York County 420931 January 26, 1973, Emerg; December 1, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Manheim, Township of, York County 422224 April 21, 1975, Emerg; April 4, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Monaghan, Township of, York County 422225 June 10, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Mount Wolf, Borough of, York County 421021 August 20, 1973, Emerg; May 15, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. New Salem, Borough of, York County 422743 N/A, Emerg; September 25, 2009, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Newberry, Township of, York County 422226 July 19, 1974, Emerg; July 2, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. North Codorus, Township of, York County 422227 August 6, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. North Hopewell, Township of, York County 422228 September 25, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. North York, Borough of, York County 420933 March 16, 1973, Emerg; May 2, 1977, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Paradise, Township of, York County 420934 June 6, 1973, Emerg; September 2, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Peach Bottom, Township of, York County 422229 January 16, 1975, Emerg; September 30, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Penn, Township of, York County 421025 January 16, 1974, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Railroad, Borough of, York County 420935 May 1, 1975, Emerg; September 28, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Seven Valleys, Borough of, York County 420936 December 13, 1974, Emerg; September 28, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Shrewsbury, Township of, York County 422230 April 1, 1976, Emerg; September 16, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Spring Garden, Township of, York County 420937 August 27, 1973, Emerg; June 15, 1977, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Spring Grove, Borough of, York County 420938 April 17, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Springettsbury, Township of, York County 421031 November 2, 1973, Emerg; December 15, 1977, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Springfield, Township of, York County 422231 November 13, 1975, Emerg; April 1, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Warrington, Township of, York County 422232 May 31, 1979, Emerg; March 16, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Washington, Township of, York County 421150 April 4, 1974, Emerg; March 2, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Wellsville, Borough of, York County 420940 July 31, 1979, Emerg; December 31, 1982, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. West Manchester, Township of, York County 422233 August 22, 1974, Emerg; June 15, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. West Manheim, Township of, York County 422234 March 9, 1976, Emerg; March 16, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Windsor, Borough of, York County 420942 May 27, 1975, Emerg; November 3, 1982, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Windsor, Township of, York County 422235 September 6, 1974, Emerg; June 1, 1983, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Wrightsville, Borough of, York County 420943 June 6, 1973, Emerg; December 18, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Yoe, Borough of, York County 420944 July 29, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. York, City of, York County 420945 October 6, 1972, Emerg; June 15, 1977, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. York, Township of, York County 421032 August 1, 1973, Emerg; May 17, 1989, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. York Haven, Borough of, York County 420946 April 13, 1978, Emerg; December 18, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Virginia: James City County, Unincorporated Areas 510201 October 20, 1975, Emerg; February 6, 1991, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Williamsburg, City of, Independent City 510294 October 29, 1975, Emerg; November 20, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Region V Indiana: Mishawaka, City of, Saint Joseph County 180227 February 24, 1975, Emerg; August 17, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Osceola, Town of, Saint Joseph County 180229 N/A, Emerg; December 14, 1992, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Saint Joseph County, Unincorporated Areas 180224 October 22, 1971, Emerg; August 15, 1978, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Minnesota: Andover, City of, Anoka County 270689 June 23, 1976, Emerg; September 30, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Anoka, City of, Anoka County 275227 February 11, 1972, Emerg; November 30, 1973, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Anoka County, Unincorporated Areas 270005 March 19, 1974, Emerg; January 16, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Blaine, City of, Anoka and Ramsey Counties 270007 June 11, 1974, Emerg; November 15, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Centerville, City of, Anoka County 270008 March 6, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Circle Pines, City of, Anoka County 270009 April 15, 1974, Emerg; September 15, 1978, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Columbia Heights, City of, Anoka County 270010 May 28, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Columbus, City of, Anoka County 270144 N/A, Emerg; February 6, 2009, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Coon Rapids, City of, Anoka County 270011 October 20, 1972, Emerg; March 15, 1977, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. East Bethel, City of, Anoka County 270012 August 16, 1974, Emerg; May 15, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Fridley, City of, Anoka County 270013 January 21, 1974, Emerg; March 2, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Ham Lake, City of, Anoka County 270674 October 24, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Lino Lakes, City of, Anoka County 270015 April 30, 1976, Emerg; May 17, 1982, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Nowthen, City of, Anoka County 270908 N/A, Emerg; April 26, 2012, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Oak Grove, City of, Anoka County 270031 N/A, Emerg; September 5, 2008, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Ramsey, City of, Anoka County 270681 July 8, 1975, Emerg; November 1, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Spring Lake Park, City of, Anoka and Ramsey Counties 270016 August 12, 1975, Emerg; August 24, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Saint Francis, City of, Anoka County 270017 September 29, 1975, Emerg; March 2, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Wisconsin: Avoca, Village of, Iowa County 550173 June 26, 1974, Emerg; September 19, 1984, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Blanchardville, Village of, Iowa and Lafayette Counties 550227 June 16, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Cobb, Village of, Iowa County 550176 August 25, 1975, Emerg; January 5, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Dodgeville, City of, Iowa County 550177 June 23, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1987, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Hollandale, Village of, Iowa County 550178 September 16, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1986, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Iowa County, Unincorporated Areas 550522 January 30, 1974, Emerg; January 17, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Linden, Village of, Iowa County 550179 April 15, 1975, Emerg; January 5, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Mineral Point, City of, Iowa County 550180 July 25, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1987, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Muscoda, Village of, Iowa and Grant Counties 550153 October 25, 1974, Emerg; September 8, 1999, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Ridgeway, Village of, Iowa County 550181 October 24, 1975, Emerg; January 5, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Region X Alaska: Cordova, City of, Valdez-Cordova Census Area 020037 July 31, 1975, Emerg; April 2, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Washington: Castle Rock, City of, Cowlitz County 530277 May 8, 1975, Emerg; June 18, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Cowlitz County, Unincorporated Areas 530032 June 18, 1971, Emerg; August 1, 1980, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Kalama, City of, Cowlitz County 530289 July 7, 1980, Emerg; June 1, 1981, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Kelso, City of, Cowlitz County 530033 July 28, 1972, Emerg; December 4, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Longview, City of, Cowlitz County 530034 May 26, 1972, Emerg; December 18, 1979, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. Woodland, City of, Clark and Cowlitz Counties 530035 June 23, 1972, Emerg; February 1, 1978, Reg; December 16, 2015, Susp ......do   Do. * do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp—Suspension.
    Dated: November 3, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30043 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 96 [GN Docket No. 12-354; FCC 15-47] Shared Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12-354, FCC 15-47. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the requirements.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 96.17(d); 96.21(a)(3); 96.23(b); 96.33(b); 96.35(e); 96.39(a), (c)-(g); 96.41(d)(1); 96.43(b); 96.45(b); 96.45(d), 96.51; 96.57(a)-(c); 96.59(a); 96.61; 96.63; and 96.67(b)-(c), published at 80 FR 36163, June 23, 2015, are effective on December 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on November 9, 2015, OMB approved the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 15-47, published at 80 FR 36163, June 23, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1211. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1211 in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

    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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on November 9, 2015, for the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 96.17; 96.21; 96.23; 96.33; 96.35; 96.39; 96.41; 96.43; 96.45; 96.51; 96.57; 96.59; 96.61; 96.63; and 96.67. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers is 3060-1211.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1211.

    OMB Approval Date: November 9, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2018.

    Title: Sections 96.17; 96.21; 96.23; 96.33; 96.35; 96.39; 96.41; 96.43; 96.45; 96.51; 96.57; 96.59; 96.61; 96.63; and 96.67, Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: New information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not for profit institutions and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 110,782 respondents; 136,432 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0-.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time and on occasion reporting requirements; other reporting requirements—as needed basis for the equipment safety certifications, and consistently (likely daily) responses automated via the device.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 302(a), 303, 304, 307(e), and 316.

    Total Annual Burden: 37,977 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $7,318,100.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. The information to be collected will be made available for public inspection. Applicants may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be given confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) received approval for new OMB Control No. 3060-1211 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The purpose of this proposal was to obtain OMB approval of rules applicable to 3550-3700 MHz (3.5 GHz) users and licensees and applicants for database administrators, as adopted by the Commission in a Report and Order (Report and Order) on April 17, 2015 (WT Docket No. 12-354; FCC 15-47). By the Report and Order, the Commission creates additional capacity for wireless broadband by adopting a new approach to spectrum management to facilitate spectrum sharing between commercial and federal users and among multiple tiers of commercial users. The order creates a Spectrum Access System (SAS), an online database that will manage and coordinate frequency use in the band through registration and other technical information. The SAS will use the information to assign frequencies, manage interference, and authorize spectrum use. The Commission will use the information to authorize the SAS Administrator(s) and ESC operator(s).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29921 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1823 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE16 NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA is issuing a final rule to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to revise a clause related to safety and health measures and mishaps reporting, reduce burden on contractors, and to provide guidance on specific safety and health measures that the contractor must take when working on a Federal facility, and the remedies the Government may take for failure to maintain an effective safety and health program. The revision is part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed in August 2011.

    DATES:

    Effective: December 28, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marilyn E. Chambers, NASA, Office of Procurement, telephone 202.358.5154.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 80 FR 48284 on August 12, 2015, to revise both the prescription for and text of the clause at 1852.223-70, which was retitled from “Safety and Health” to “Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting” to emphasize the purpose of the clause—requiring contractors working at Federal facilities to have measures in place to protect the safety of their workers, other individuals working at the facility, and the public. To reduce the burden on contractors, the clause prescription was revised to require it in solicitations and contracts above the simplified action threshold and to require it only for contracts involving performance at a Federal facility. The applicability to subcontracts was also revised to apply to subcontracts above the simplified acquisition threshold where performance is at a Federal facility.

    Paragraph (b) of the clause lists safety and occupational health measures, recognized by the Office of Safety and Health Administration and industry, as standards for both identifying workplace hazards and for developing a plan for prevention and control of those hazards. These measures include maintaining an effective worksite safety and health program with organized and systematic methods to—

    1. Comply with Federal, State, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of the contract;

    2. Describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees;

    3. Inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards;

    4. Orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and

    5. Periodically review the program's effectiveness. Additionally, paragraph (b) added text concerning authorized Government representatives' rights to have access to and to examine the work site and related records under the contract in order to determine the adequacy of the Contractor's safety and occupational health measures. Paragraph (d) refers to NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping, which contains a listing and description of the types of mishaps (types A, B, C, or D) or close calls the contractor must report to the contracting officer. Paragraph (e) requires contractors to cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation by providing access to their employees and relevant information in their possession regarding the mishap or close call. Paragraph (f) states the Contracting Officer may notify the Contractor of any noncompliance with the health and safety requirements of the contract and require corrective action. If the contractor fails or refuses to take prompt corrective action, the Contracting Officer may—

    (1) Invoke the stop-work order clause;

    (2) Require the Contractor to remove and replace Contractor or subcontractor personnel who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements;

    (3) Record the Contractor's failure to comply in the appropriate databases of past performance; and

    (4) Consider the Contractor's failure to comply in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.

    Paragraph (g) requires the prime contractor to include the clause in subcontracts over the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    No public comments were received in response to the proposed rule. However, during internal deliberations a couple of minor changes were made. Section 1801.106(1) was revised to add new OMB control number 2700-1060, which was assigned for reporting requirements at NFS 1852.223-70. Additionally, paragraph (f)(1) of 1852.223-70 was revised to change the phrase “the Contracting Officer shall” to “the Contracting Officer will” and to remove the term “any necessary.” Paragraph (f) (2) was revised to remove “in addition to other remedies available to the Government” and add “the contracting officer may” with a list of four actions, previously listed in the proposed rule, enumerated and rephrased to clearly list the action to be taken: “invoke,” “require,” “record,” and “consider.” No other revisions were made to the proposed rule.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NASA has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et se., and is summarized as follows:

    This rule revises NFS clause 1852.223-70 to reduce burden on contractors by (1) changing the applicability of the clause to only contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold and to only those performed on Federal facilities, and (2) by removing reporting requirements relating to mishap investigations and health and safety plans. The clause also provides guidance on specific safety and health measures the contractor must take when working on a Federal facility, and the remedies the Government may take for failure to maintain an effective safety and health program.

    No comments were received on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis from small business concerns or other interested parties.

    This rule will apply to small entities performing NASA contracts with an estimated value over the simplified acquisition threshold on Federal Facilities. The System for Award Management (SAM) data shows approximately 154 firms received contracts to which this clause will apply. Of those 154 firms, 84 were small businesses.

    Two reporting requirements are contained in the rule. One is to notify the contracting officer of mishaps (types A, B, C, or D) or close calls as described in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping. The other is to provide a quarterly report on the number of mishaps, specifying lost time frequency rate, number of lost time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses. This information is collected so that NASA can analyze mishap data to look for mishap trends and determine ways to improve the safety of its workforce and high-value assets and reduce the risk to its missions. This mishap information would be initially collected by a company manager or supervisor. It may be reviewed by the firm's official responsible for safety, usually an occupational health and safety. Lost time frequency rate, number of lost time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses reports would be prepared by a safety official.

    The revisions to NFS clause 1852.223-70 are designed to reduce burden on contractors by reducing the applicability of the clause and reducing the paperwork burden. The information requested in the clause is essential to the NASA health and safety program. Further and differing compliance alternatives or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities are not feasible. Having an effective safety program is crucial to all businesses as it reduces injuries, lost time, property damage and creates a more safe and effective workplace for employees.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). OMB has cleared this information collection requirement under OMB Control Number 2700-0160, titled: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR 1801, 1823, and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Manuel Quinones, NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1823 and 1852 are amended as follows:

    PART 1801—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 1801 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    2. Section 1801.106 is revised to read as follows:
    801.106 OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (1) NFS requirements. The following OMB control numbers apply:

    NFS Segment OMB Control No. 1823 2700-0089 1852.223-70 2700-0160 1827 2700-0052 1843 2700-0054 NF 533 2700-0003 NF 1018 2700-0017
    PART 1823—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE 3. The authority citation for part 1823 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    4. Amend section 1823.7001 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
    1823.7001 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (a) Insert the clause at 1852.223-70, Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting, in solicitations and contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.

    (b) The clause prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section may be excluded with the approval of the installation official(s) responsible for matters of safety and occupational health.

    PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 5. The authority citation for part 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    1852.2 [Amended]
    6. Amend subpart 1852.2 by removing “1852.223-70 Safety and health” and adding “1852.223-70 Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting” in its place. 7. Revise section 1852.223-70 to read as follows:
    1852.223-70 Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting.

    As prescribed in 1823.7001(a), insert the following clause:

    SAFETY AND HEALTH MEASURES AND MISHAP REPORTING (DEC 2015)

    (a) Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness, damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA's safety priority is to protect: (1) The public, (2) astronauts and pilots, (3) the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), and (4) high-value equipment and property.

    (b) The Contractor shall take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures in performing this contract. The Contractor shall maintain an effective worksite safety and health program with organized and systematic methods to—

    (1) Comply with Federal, State, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of this contract;

    (2) Describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees;

    (3) Inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards;

    (4) Orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and

    (5) Periodically review the program's effectiveness. Authorized Government representatives shall have access to and the right to examine the work site and related records under this Contract in order to determine the adequacy of the Contractor's safety and occupational health measures.

    (c) The Contractor shall take, or cause to be taken, any other safety, and occupational health-measures the Contracting Officer may reasonably direct. To the extent that the Contractor may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for those measures under the terms and conditions of this contract, the equitable adjustment shall be determined pursuant to the procedures of the changes clause of this contract; provided, that no adjustment shall be made under this Safety and Health clause for any change for which an equitable adjustment is expressly provided under any other clause of the contract.

    (d) The Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer or a designee any Type A, B, C, or D Mishap, or close calls as defined in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping. In addition, service contractors (excluding construction contracts) shall provide quarterly reports specifying lost-time frequency rate, number of lost-time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses as specified in the contract Schedule.

    (e) The Contractor shall cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation of Type A, B, C, or D Mishaps, or Close Calls reported pursuant to paragraph (d) of this clause by providing access to employees; and relevant information in the possession of the Contractor regarding the mishap or close call.

    (f)(1) The Contracting Officer may notify the Contractor of any noncompliance with this clause and specify corrective actions to be taken. When the Contracting Officer becomes aware of noncompliance that may pose a serious or imminent danger to safety and health of the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), or high value mission critical equipment or property, the Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor orally, with written confirmation. The Contractor shall promptly take corrective action.

    (2) If the Contractor fails or refuses to institute prompt corrective action in accordance with subparagraph (f)(1) of this clause, the Contracting Officer may—

    (i) Invoke the stop-work order clause in this contract;

    (ii) Require the Contractor to remove and replace Contractor or subcontractor personnel who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements of this clause;

    (iii) Record the Contractor's failure to comply in the appropriate databases of past performance; and

    (iv) Consider the Contractor's failure to comply in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.

    (g) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (g) in all subcontracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.

    (End of clause)

    [FR Doc. 2015-29947 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1845 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE23 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: NASA Capitalization Threshold (NFS Case 2015-N004) AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to increase the NASA capitalization threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.

    DATES:

    Effective: November 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew O'Rourke, telephone 202-358-4560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    NASA published an interim rule in the Federal Register at 80 FR 51957 on August 27, 2015, to amend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to increase the NASA capitalization threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    There were no public comments submitted in response to the interim rule. The interim rule has been converted to a final rule, without change.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NASA does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et se. A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    The increase in the NASA capitalization threshold is expected to benefit NASA contractors by reducing the administrative burden associated with financial reporting of NASA property in the custody of contractors. The legal basis for this rule is 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).

    The requirements under this rule will apply to any contract award (including contracts for supplies, services, construction, and major systems) that requires the use of Government property by contractors. According to NASA Property Records in FY 2014 there were 568 contracts that required reporting of Government property by NASA contractors. Of the 568 contracts, it is estimated that approximately 20% or 114 contracts were small businesses.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of the rule.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; however, these changes to the NFS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 2700-0017, entitled NASA Property In the Custody of Contractors and OMB Control No. 9000-0075, entitled Government Property.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1845 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Manuel Quinones, NASA FAR Supplement Manager. Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 1845 and 1852, which was published at 80 FR 51957, is adopted as final without change.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29981 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    80 227 Wednesday, November 25, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 6 CFR Part 46 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 7 CFR Part 1c DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 745 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Part 1230 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 15 CFR Part 27 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 431 AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22 CFR Part 225 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 46 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 29 CFR Part 21 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 32 CFR Part 219 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 97 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 16 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 26 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 46 RIN 0937-AA02 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 45 CFR Part 690 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 11 Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects AGENCIES:

    Department of Homeland Security; Department of Agriculture; Department of Energy; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Commerce; Social Security Administration; Agency for International Development; Department of Justice; Department of Labor;Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Health and Human Services; National Science Foundation; and Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services and the other Federal Departments and Agencies listed in this document are extending the comment period on the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects notice of proposed rulemaking. The NPRM requests comment on proposed revisions to modernize, strengthen, and make more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects that was promulgated as a Common Rule in 1991. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2015.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53933), is extended by 30 days and thus will end on January 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket ID number HHS-OPHS-2015-0008, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Enter the above docket ID number in the “Enter Keyword or ID” field and click on “Search.” On the next Web page, click on “Submit a Comment” action and follow the instructions.

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions] to: Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., OHRP, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852; telephone: 240 453-6900 or 1-866-447-4777; EMAIL: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Since the NPRM was published on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53933), participating departments and agencies have received requests to extend the comment period to allow sufficient time for a full review of the NPRM. The departments and agencies listed in this document are committed to affording the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the NPRM and welcome comments.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30122 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-36-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 360 RIN 3064-AE38 Treatment of Financial Assets Transferred in Connection With a Securitization or Participation AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC is proposing a rule that would revise a provision of its Securitization Safe Harbor Rule, which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation, in order to clarify a requirement as to loss mitigation by servicers of residential mortgage loans.

    DATES:

    Comments on the Proposed Rule must be received by January 25, 2016.

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN number, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site.

    Email: [email protected] Include RIN 3064-AE38 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

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

    Instructions: All comments will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George H. Williamson, Manager, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, (571) 858-8199. Phillip E. Sloan, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562-6137.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in regulations codified at 12 CFR 360.6 (the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule), set forth criteria under which in its capacity as receiver or conservator of an insured depository institution the FDIC will not, in the exercise of its authority to repudiate contracts, recover or reclaim financial assets transferred in connection with securitization transactions. Asset transfers that, under the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule, are not subject to recovery or reclamation through the exercise of the FDIC's repudiation authority include those that pertain to certain grandfathered transactions, such as, for example, asset transfers made prior to December 31, 2010 that satisfied the conditions (except for the legal isolation condition addressed by the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule) for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in effect for reporting periods prior to November 15, 2009 and that pertain to a securitization transaction that satisfied certain other requirements. In addition, the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule provides that asset transfers that are not grandfathered, but that satisfy the conditions (except for the legal isolation condition addressed by the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule) for sale accounting treatment under GAAP in effect for reporting periods after November 15, 2009 and that pertain to a securitization transaction that satisfies all other conditions of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule (such asset transfers, together with grandfathered asset transfers, are referred to collectively as Safe Harbor Transfers) will not be subject to FDIC recovery or reclamation actions through the exercise of the FDIC's repudiation authority. For any securitization transaction in respect of which transfers of financial assets do not qualify as Safe Harbor Transfers but which transaction satisfies all of its other requirements, the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule provides that, in the event the FDIC as receiver or conservator remains in monetary default for a specified period under a securitization due to its failure to pay or apply collections or repudiates the securitization asset transfer agreement and does not pay damages within a specified period, certain remedies can be exercised on an expedited basis.

    Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule sets forth conditions relating to the servicing of residential mortgage loans. This paragraph includes a condition that the securitization documents must require that the servicer commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies on such asset have been cured.

    In January, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) adopted mortgage loan servicing requirements that became effective on January 10, 2014. One of the requirements, set forth in Subpart C to Regulation X, at 12 CFR 1024.41, in general prohibits a servicer from commencing a foreclosure unless the borrower's mortgage loan obligation is more than 120 days delinquent. This section of Regulation X also provides additional rules that, among other things, require a lender to further delay foreclosure if the borrower submits a loss mitigation application before the lender has commenced the foreclosure process and requires a lender to delay a foreclosure for which it has commenced the foreclosure process if a borrower has submitted a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale.1

    1See 12 CFR 1024.41(f) and (g).

    II. Discussion

    While the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule does not define what constitutes action to mitigate losses, the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded issuance of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule 2 stated, “In this connection, it is important to note that action to mitigate losses may include contact with the borrower or other steps designed to return the asset to regular payments, but does not require initiation of foreclosure or other formal enforcement proceedings.” 3 Accordingly, it should be unlikely that the 90-day loss mitigation requirement of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule would conflict with the foreclosure commencement delays mandated by the CFPB under Regulation X. However, as there may be circumstances where commencement of foreclosure is the only available and reasonable loss mitigation action, the FDIC is proposing to amend the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule to make clear that the Rule does not require documents governing a securitization transaction to require any action prohibited by Regulation X.

    2 77 FR 27471 (May 17, 2010).

    3 77 FR 27479.

    III. Policy Objective

    The objective of the Proposed Rule is to facilitate regulatory compliance and ease regulatory burden by ensuring that regulations are clear and consistent with other regulatory initiatives. In particular, the objective of the Proposed Rule is to harmonize the residential loan servicing condition of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule with the CFPB's loan servicing requirements.

    IV. Request for Comment

    The FDIC invites comment from all members of the public on the Proposed Rule. Comments are specifically requested on whether additional changes to the servicing provisions included in the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule need to be modified so as not to conflict with other applicable laws or regulations. The FDIC will carefully consider all comments that relate to the Proposed Rule.

    V. Administrative Law Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) (PRA) the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Proposed Rule would not revise the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule information collection 3064-0177 or create any new information collection pursuant to the PRA. Consequently, no submission will be made to the Office of Management and Budget for review. The FDIC requests comment on its conclusion that this NPR does not revise the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule information collection, 3064-0177.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603-605. The FDIC hereby certifies that the Proposed Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as that term applies to insured depository institutions.

    C. Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat.1338, 1471) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the Proposed Rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 360

    Banks, Banking, Bank deposit insurance, Holding companies, National banks, Participations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securitizations.

    For the reasons stated above, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR part 360 as follows:

    PART 360—RESOLUTION AND RECEIVERSHIP RULES 1. The authority citation for Part 360 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(1), 1821(d)(10)(C), 1821(d)(11), 1821(e)(1), 1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4), 1823(e)(2); Sec. 401(h), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 357.

    2. Revise § 360.6(b)(3)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
    § 360.6 Treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) Servicing and other agreements must provide servicers with authority, subject to contractual oversight by any master servicer or oversight advisor, if any, to mitigate losses on financial assets consistent with maximizing the net present value of the financial asset. Servicers shall have the authority to modify assets to address reasonably foreseeable default, and to take other action to maximize the value and minimize losses on the securitized financial assets. The documents shall require that the servicers apply industry best practices for asset management and servicing. The documents shall require the servicer to act for the benefit of all investors, and not for the benefit of any particular class of investors, that the servicer maintain records of its actions to permit full review by the trustee or other representative of the investors and that the servicer must commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety (90) days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies have been cured, provided that this requirement shall not be deemed to require that the documents include any provision concerning loss mitigation that requires any action that may conflict with the requirements of Regulation X (12 CFR part 1024), as Regulation X may by amended or modified from time to time.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of October, 2015.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29821 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25970; Directorate Identifier 99-NE-12-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2006-23-17, which applies to certain Turbomeca S.A. Turmo IV A and IV C turboshaft engines. AD 2006-23-17 currently requires repetitive inspections of the centrifugal compressor intake wheel (inducer) blades for cracks and corrosion, replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 standard centrifugal compressor. This proposed AD would require the same inspections but at revised intervals, add the replacement of the TU 215 standard centrifugal compressor, and require replacement of parts that fail inspection. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor inducer, which could lead to an uncontained blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 25, 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 Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2006-25970; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7134; 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 NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25970; Directorate Identifier 99-NE-12-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 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 NPRM.

    Discussion

    On November 7, 2006, we issued AD 2006-23-17, Amendment 39-14829 (71 FR 66664, November 16, 2006), (“AD 2006-23-17”), for all Turbomeca S.A. Turmo IV A and IV C turboshaft engines. AD 2006-23-17 resulted from a Turbomeca S.A. review of the engine service experience and their determination that more frequent borescope inspections (BSIs) are required on engines not modified to the TU 191, TU 197, or TU 224 standard. AD 2006-23-17 requires repetitive BSI and eddy current inspections (ECIs) or ultrasonic inspections (UIs) of centrifugal compressor intake wheel (inducer) blades and replacement of parts that fail inspection and replacement of the TU 197 standard centrifugal compressor. We issued AD 2006-23-17 to prevent centrifugal compressor intake wheel (inducer) blade cracks, which can result in engine in-flight power loss, engine shutdown, or forced landing.

    Actions Since AD 2006-23-17 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-23-17, a centrifugal compressor inducer blade loss occurred on an engine modified to TU 224 standard. This blade loss was due to cracks caused by impacts combined with significant erosion of the part not related to the TU 224 modification. Turbomeca S.A. has revised the inspection intervals for the centrifugal compressor (inducer) blades, and requires replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors. This proposed AD would require repetitive BSIs, and ECIs or UIs of the centrifugal compressor inducers at revised intervals, replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A249-72-0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for the inspection and replacement of the centrifugal compressor inducer blades. 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 NPRM 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 NPRM would require repetitive BSIs, and ECIs or UIs based on the in-service requirements established for the various centrifugal compressor inducer standards, replacement of parts that fail inspection, and replacement of the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 36 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that two of these engines will require compressor replacement. We also estimate that about 40 hours per engine are required to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts cost about $40,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $202,400.

    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) 2006-23-17, Amendment 39-14829 (71 FR 66664, November 16, 2006) (“2006-23-17”), and adding the following new AD: Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2006-25970; Directorate Identifier 99-NE-12-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2006-23-17.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Turmo IV A and IV C turboshaft engines.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a centrifugal compressor inducer blade loss. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor inducer, which could lead to an uncontained blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Remove the TU 197 and TU 215 standard centrifugal compressors and install the TU 224 standard centrifugal compressor, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Perform initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections (UIs) or eddy current inspections (ECIs) of the centrifugal compressor (inducer). Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 6.B.(1)(b) of Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 to do the inspections. Use Appendix 1 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 for the schedule of inspections.

    (3) Perform initial and repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) of the centrifugal compressor inducer. Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 6.B.(1)(a) of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 to do the inspections. Use Appendix 1 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100 Version H, dated May 21, 2015 for the schedule of inspections.

    (4) If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (e)(2) or (e)(3) of this AD, any crack, corrosion, or other damage is detected on the inducer, then before next flight, replace the centrifugal compressor.

    (5) Accomplishment of a UI or ECI of the centrifugal compressor inducer, required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, is acceptable in lieu of a BSI required by paragraph (e)(3) of this AD for that engine.

    (6) Replacement of a centrifugal compressor required by paragraph (e)(4) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD.

    (f) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraph (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD if you performed the inspections and corrective actions before the effective date of this AD, using Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A249 72 0100, Version G, or an earlier version.

    (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 Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7134; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.

    (3) 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 18, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29886 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. RM16-1-000] Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power. As a result, all newly interconnecting generators, including both synchronous and non-synchronous generators, would be required to provide reactive power. To implement this requirement, the Commission proposes to revise the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA), Appendix G to the pro forma LGIA, and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) in accordance with the Commission's regulations, which require every public utility with a non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff on file to also have on file the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA “required by Commission rulemaking proceedings promulgating and amending such interconnection procedures and agreements.” In this Proposal to Revise Standard Generator Interconnection Agreements (Proposal), the Commission proposes to modify both agreements to eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power. As a result, all newly interconnecting generators (i.e., new generators seeking to interconnect to the transmission system and all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests), both synchronous and non-synchronous, would be required to provide reactive power as a condition of interconnection as of the effective date of the final revision.

    DATES:

    Comments are due January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

    Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Bak (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6574, [email protected] Gretchen Kershaw (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8213, [email protected]
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Proposal To Revise Standard Generator Interconnection Agreements Issued November 19, 2015

    1. In this Proposal to Revise Standard Generator Interconnection Agreements (Proposal), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power. As a result, all newly interconnecting generators, including both synchronous and non-synchronous, would be required to provide reactive power. Specifically, the Commission proposes to modify the two pro forma interconnection agreements, the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA), to eliminate the current exemption for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power, thereby requiring all newly interconnecting generators (i.e., new generators seeking to interconnect to the transmission system and all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests), both synchronous and non-synchronous, to provide reactive power. This Proposal would create comparable reactive power requirements for non-synchronous and synchronous generators, except that the Proposal requires that non-synchronous generators maintain the required power factor range only when the generator's real power output exceeds 10 percent of its nameplate capacity. Additionally, all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests would be required to provide reactive power.

    2. The existing pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA both require, as a condition of interconnection, an interconnecting generator “to design its generating facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor 1 of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, or a different range if adopted by the Transmission Provider” 2 (i.e., the reactive power requirement). This reactive power requirement requires dynamic reactive power 3 from generators. As discussed below, however, wind generators have been exempted from the reactive power requirement absent a study finding the provision of reactive power necessary, because historically, costs for an interconnection customer to design and build a wind generator that could provide reactive power were high and could have created an obstacle to the development of wind generation.4 However, due to technological advancements, wind generators can now provide reactive power more cheaply and the cost of providing reactive power no longer presents an obstacle to the development of wind generation.5 The subsequent decline in the cost to wind generators of providing reactive power may make it unduly discriminatory and preferential to exempt wind generators from the reactive power requirement when other types of generators are not exempt. Further, the growing penetration of wind generators on some systems increases the potential for a deficiency in reactive power.6 Given this potential, the Commission's current requirement that the transmission provider conduct a study to determine whether each new wind generator needs to provide reactive power may unduly place the burden of supplying reactive power on synchronous generators without a reasonable technological or cost-based basis.

    1 The power factor of an alternating current transmission system is the ratio of real power to apparent power. Reliable operation of a transmission system requires system operators to maintain a tight control of voltages (at all points) on the transmission system. The ability to vary the ratio of real power to apparent power (i.e., adjust the power factor) allows system operators to maintain scheduled voltages within allowed for tolerances on the transmission system and maintain the reliability of the transmission system. The Commission established a required power factor range in Order No. 2003 of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging. See Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146, at P 542 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160, order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,171 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008).

    2 Section 9.6.1 of the pro forma LGIA and section 1.8.1 of the pro forma SGIA.

    3 Reactive power sources are generally categorized as static or dynamic based on the speed and continuity at which they can produce or absorb reactive power in response to changes in system conditions. In general, dynamic reactive power devices are characterized by faster acting and continuously variable voltage control capability.

    4Interconnection for Wind Energy, Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,186, at P 51, order on reh'g, Order No. 661-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,198 (2005).

    5Payment for Reactive Power, Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-7, app. 2, at 1-3 (Apr. 22, 2014).

    6See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at P 7 (2015).

    3. Therefore, the Commission proposes to eliminate the existing exemptions for wind generators, and thereby require that all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators provide dynamic reactive power as a condition of interconnection. This requirement would also apply to all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests. The proposals set forth in this Proposal are intended to ensure that all generators, synchronous and non-synchronous, are treated in a not unduly discriminatory or preferential manner, as required by sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),7 and to ensure sufficient reactive power is available on the electric grid as more non-synchronous generators seek to interconnect.

    7 16 U.S.C. 824a, 824b (2012).

    4. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed reforms sixty (60) days after publication of this Proposal in the Federal Register.

    Background

    5. Transmission providers require reactive power to control system voltage for efficient and reliable operation of an alternating current transmission system. At times, transmission providers need generators to either supply or consume reactive power. Starting with Order No. 888,8 which included provisions regarding reactive power from generators as an ancillary service in Schedule 2 of the pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), the Commission issued a series of orders intended to ensure that sufficient reactive power is available to maintain the reliability of the electric grid.

    8Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048, order on reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).

    6. Starting with Order No. 2003, the Commission adopted standard procedures and a standard agreement for the interconnection of large generation facilities (the pro forma LGIA), which included the reactive power requirement.9 The Commission recognized in Order No. 2003-A that the pro forma LGIA was “designed around the needs of large synchronous generators and that generators relying on newer technologies may find that either a specific requirement is inapplicable or that it calls for a slightly different approach” because such generators “may have unique electrical characteristics.” 10 Therefore, the Commission exempted wind generators from the reactive power requirement and added a blank Appendix G to the pro forma LGIA as a placeholder for future interconnection requirements for newer technologies.11

    9 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 1, 542.

    10 Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 407 & n.85.

    11Id. Article 9.6.1 of the pro forma LGIA provides: “Interconnection Customer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the Control Area on a comparable basis. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to wind generators.”

    7. In June 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 661,12 establishing interconnection requirements in Appendix G to the pro forma LGIA for large wind generators.13 Recognizing that, unlike traditional synchronous generators, wind generators had to “install costly equipment” in order to maintain reactive power capability, the Commission in Order No. 661 preserved the exemption for large wind generators from the reactive power requirement unless the transmission provider shows, through a System Impact Study, that reactive power capability is required to ensure safety or reliability.14 The Commission explained that this qualified exemption from the reactive power requirement for large wind generators would provide certainty to the industry and “remove unnecessary obstacles to the increased growth of wind generation.” 15

    12Interconnection for Wind Energy, Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,186, Appendix B (Appendix G—Interconnection Requirements for a Wind Generating Plant), order on reh'g, Order No. 661-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,198 (2005).

    13Id. P 1.

    14Id. PP 50-51. Appendix G states: “A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the Transmission Provider's System Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety and reliability.”

    15Id. P 50.

    8. In May 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 2006,16 in which it adopted standard procedures and a standard agreement for the interconnection of small generation facilities (pro forma SGIA).17 In Order No. 2006, the Commission completely exempted small wind generators from the reactive power requirement.18 The Commission reasoned that, similar to large wind generators, small wind generators would face increased costs to provide reactive power that could create an obstacle to the development of small wind generators. Additionally, the Commission reasoned that small wind generators would “have minimal impact on the Transmission Provider's electric system” and therefore the reliability requirements for large wind generators that were eventually imposed in Order No. 661 were not needed for small wind generators.19

    16Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180, Attachment F (Small Generator Interconnection Agreement), order on reh'g, Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,196 (2005), order granting clarification, Order No. 2006-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,221 (2006).

    17Id. P 1.

    18Id. P 387. Section 1.8.1 of the pro forma SGIA states: “The Interconnection Customer shall design its Small Generating Facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless the Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all similarly situated generators in the control area on a comparable basis. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to wind generators.”

    19Id. P 24.

    9. Since the Commission provided these exemptions from the reactive power requirement for wind generators, the equipment needed for a wind generator to provide reactive power appears to have become more commercially available and less costly, such that the cost of installing equipment that is capable of providing reactive power is comparable to the costs of a traditional generator.20 Recognizing these factors, the Commission recently accepted a proposal by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to effectively remove the wind generator exemption from the PJM tariff.21 Specifically, the Commission granted PJM an “independent entity variation” from Order No. 661 in accepting PJM's proposal to require interconnection customers seeking to interconnect non-synchronous generators,22 including wind generators, to use “enhanced inverters” with the capability to provide reactive power.23 The Commission observed that, “[a]lthough there are still technical differences between non-synchronous generators [such as wind generators] and traditional generators, with regard to the provision of reactive power, those differences have significantly diminished since the Commission issued Order No. 661.” 24 The Commission agreed with PJM “that the technology has changed both in availability and in cost since the Commission rejected [the California Independent System Operator's] proposal in 2010,” such that “PJM's proposal will not present a barrier to non-synchronous resources.” 25

    20Payment for Reactive Power, Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-7, app. 1, at 6, app. 2, at 4-5 (Apr. 22, 2014).

    21PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at P 28 (2015).

    22 Non-synchronous generators are “connected to the bulk power system through power electronics, but do not produce power at system frequency (60 Hz).” They “do not operate in the same way as traditional generators and respond differently to network disturbances.” Id. P 1 n.3 (citing Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,198 at P 3 n.4). Wind and solar photovoltaic generators are two examples of non-synchronous generators.

    23Id. PP 1, 6.

    24Id. P 28.

    25Id.

    Discussion

    10. The continued exemption from the reactive power requirement in the pro forma LGIA and the pro forma SGIA for newly interconnecting wind generators appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential. Older wind turbine generators consumed reactive power; however, they lacked the capability to produce and control reactive power without the use of costly equipment because they did not use inverters like other non-synchronous generators.26 Technological advances have been made in the inverters used by wind generators.27 Based on these improvements, requiring newly interconnecting wind generators to provide reactive power does not appear to be the obstacle to the development of wind generation that it was when the Commission issued Order Nos. 2003, 661, and 2006.28 In particular, the wind turbines being installed today are generally Type III and Type IV inverter-based turbines,29 which are capable of producing and controlling dynamic reactive power, which was not the case in 2005 when the Commission exempted wind generators from the reactive power requirement in Order No. 661.30 The Commission preliminarily concludes that improvements in technology and the corresponding declining costs to newly interconnecting wind generators in providing reactive power make it unduly discriminatory and preferential to exempt such non-synchronous generators from the reactive power requirement when other types of generators are not exempt. Given the reduced costs to newly interconnecting wind generators to provide reactive power, requiring them to operate within the required power factor range would ensure they satisfy the same requirements as other generators and satisfy a basic requirement of interconnection.31

    26 Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,186 at PP 50-51.

    27 Non-synchronous generators produce electricity that is not synchronized to the electric grid (i.e., direct current (DC) power or alternating current (AC) power at a frequency other than 60 hertz). Inverters convert non-synchronized AC or DC power into synchronized AC power that can be transmitted on the transmission system.

    28 As discussed above, in exempting wind generators from the reactive power requirement, the Commission sought to avoid creating an obstacle to the development of wind generation. For example, in Order No. 661, the Commission was concerned with “remov[ing] unnecessary obstacles to the increased growth of wind generation.” Id. P 50.

    29 A Type III wind turbine is a non-synchronous wound-rotor generator that has a three phase AC field applied to the rotor from a partially-rated power-electronics converter. A Type IV wind turbine is an AC generator in which the stator windings are connected to the power system through a fully-rated power-electronics converter. Both Type III and Type IV wind turbines have inherent reactive power capabilities.

    30Id. PP 50-51.

    31See, e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 119 FERC ¶ 61,199, at P 29 (“Providing reactive power within the [standard power factor range] is an obligation of a generator, and is as much an obligation of a generator as, for example, operating in accordance with Good Utility Practice.”), order on reh'g, 121 FERC ¶ 61,196 (2007).

    11. Further, the Commission is concerned that, as the penetration of wind generation continues to grow, exempting a class of generators from providing reactive power could create reliability issues if those generators represent a substantial amount of total generation, or if many of the resources that currently provide reactive power are retired from operation. Local reliability issues, due to the short distances that reactive power can be transmitted, that are not readily apparent given the current generation mix could result if a region were to lose synchronous resources that supply reactive power and the resulting generation mix consisted of a significant quantity of resources that were exempt from providing reactive power. Further, the Commission believes that maintaining this exemption may unduly place the burden of supplying reactive power on synchronous generators without a reasonable technological or cost-based distinction between synchronous and non-synchronous generators.32

    32See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at P 7 (2015); Payment for Reactive Power, Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-7, app. 1 (Apr. 22, 2014).

    12. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily concludes that the continued exemption from the reactive power requirement for newly interconnecting wind generators is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential. The Commission, therefore, proposes to revise the pro forma LGIA, Appendix G of the pro forma LGIA, and the pro forma SGIA to eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the reactive power requirement.33 Under this Proposal, newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators would be eligible for the same payments for reactive power as other generators.34 Any compensation would be based on the cost of providing reactive power. We note that the cost to a wind generator of providing reactive power may not be easily estimated using existing methods that are applied to synchronous generators.35 The Commission also proposes that transmission providers that are not public utilities will have to adopt the requirements of this Proposal as a condition of maintaining the status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity requirement of Order No. 888.36

    33 The Commission does not propose to revise any regulatory text. The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA in accordance with section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission's regulations, which provides: “Every public utility that is required to have on file a non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff under this section must amend such tariff by adding the standard interconnection procedures and agreement and the standard small generator interconnection procedures and agreement required by Commission rulemaking proceedings promulgating and amending such interconnection procedures and agreements, or such other interconnection procedures and agreements as may be required by Commission rulemaking proceedings promulgating and amending the standard interconnection procedures and agreement and the standard small generator interconnection procedures and agreement.” 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) (2015). See Integration of Variable Energy Resources, Order No. 764, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,331, at PP 343-345 (adopting this regulatory text effective September 11, 2012), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 764-A, 141 FERC ¶ 61,232 (2012), order on clarification and reh'g, Order No. 764-B, 144 FERC ¶ 61,222 (2013). While not revising regulatory text, the Commission is using the process provided for rulemaking proceedings, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(4)-(5) (2012).

    34 Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 416.

    35See Payment for Reactive Power, Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-7, app. 2 (Apr. 22, 2014).

    36 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,760-63.

    13. Removing the exemptions for wind generators from the reactive power requirement would specifically require all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators, and all existing non-synchronous generators proposing upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests, to design their generating facilities to maintain reactive power within a power factor range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, or the standard range established by the transmission provider and approved by the Commission, to be measured at the Point of Interconnection.37

    37 The pro forma LGIA defines “Point of Interconnection” as “the point, as set forth in Appendix A to the Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, where the Interconnection Facilities connect to the Transmission Provider's Transmission System.” Similarly, the pro forma SGIA defines “Point of Interconnection” as “[t]he point where the Interconnection Facilities connect with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System.”

    14. The Commission also proposes to require that the reactive power capability installed by non-synchronous generators be dynamic. In Order No. 661, the Commission declined to require dynamic reactive power capability from wind generators, unless the System Impact Study showed that dynamic reactive power capability was needed for system reliability, reasoning that dynamic reactive power capability may not be needed in every case.38 Based on technological advancements, the Commission no longer believes it is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential to exempt wind generators from the requirement to provide dynamic reactive power.39

    38See Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,186 at P 66.

    39Payment for Reactive Power, Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-7, at 7 (Apr. 22, 2014).

    15. Further, the Commission proposes to require that newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators be required to design the generating facility to maintain the required power factor range only when the generator's real power output exceeds 10 percent of its nameplate capacity.40 In requiring a generator to provide reactive power, the interconnection agreements would state: “Non-synchronous generators shall only be required to maintain the above power factor when their output is above 10 percent of the Generating Facility Capacity.” The Commission's understanding is that the inverters used by non-synchronous generators are not capable of producing reactive power when operating below 10 percent of nameplate capacity.41

    40See Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,186 at P 46.

    41Id.

    16. Specifically, with deleted text in brackets and added text in italics, the Commission proposes to revise section 9.6.1 of the pro forma LGIA to read:

    Interconnection Customer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the Control Area on a comparable basis. [The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to wind generators.] Non-synchronous generators shall only be required to maintain the above power factor when their output is above 10 percent of the Generating Facility Capacity. 42

    42 Section 9.6.1 of the pro forma LGIA.

    The Commission similarly proposes to revise section 1.8.1 of the pro forma SGIA to read:

    The Interconnection Customer shall design its Small Generating Facility to maintain a composite power delivery at continuous rated power output at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless the Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all similarly situated generators in the control area on a comparable basis. [The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to wind generators.] Non-synchronous generators shall only be required to maintain the above power factor when their output is above 10 percent of the generator nameplate capacity. 43

    43 Section 1.8.1 of the pro forma SGIA.

    In addition, the Commission would strike paragraph A.ii of Appendix G to the pro forma LGIA, “Technical Standards Applicable to a Wind Generation Plant.” 44

    44 The full text of the pro forma LGIA will be posted on the Commission's internet page at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/gi/stnd-gen.asp. The full text of the pro forma SGIA will be posted on the Commission's internet page at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/gi/small-gen.asp.

    A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the Transmission Provider's System Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range standard can be met by using, for example, power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability 606 (taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Transmission Provider, or a combination of the two. The Interconnection Customer shall not disable power factor equipment while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator excitation system if the System Impact Study shows this to be required for system safety or reliability.45

    45 Section A.ii of Appendix G to the pro forma LGIA.

    17. The Commission proposes to apply the reactive power requirement to all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators, as well as all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests, as of the effective date of the final revision. The Commission also proposes to apply the reactive power requirement to all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators that have requested that an LGIA or SGIA be filed unexecuted with the Commission that is still pending before the Commission as of the effective date of the final revision. Thus, the requirement would not apply to non-synchronous generators that have executed an LGIA or SGIA, as relevant, prior to the effective date of the final revision, unless they propose upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests. Given that not all existing wind generators are capable of providing reactive power without incurring substantial costs to install new equipment, we do not believe it is reasonable or necessary to require those generators to provide reactive power. However, existing wind generators that make upgrades to their generation facility that require a new interconnection request will be required to conform to this new requirement.

    18. The Commission seeks comments on the Proposal to remove the exemptions for wind generators from the reactive power requirement. Further, the Commission seeks comments on whether the current power factor range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, as set forth in the existing pro forma interconnection agreements,46 is reasonable given the technology used by non-synchronous generators. The Commission also seeks comments on the proposed requirement that newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators only be required to produce reactive power when the generator's real power output is greater than 10 percent of nameplate capacity. And finally, we note that a non-synchronous generator will be eligible for compensation for reactive power, consistent with the compensation provisions of the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA.47 The Commission seeks comment on whether the existing methods used to determine reactive power compensation are appropriate for wind generators and, if not, what alternatives would be appropriate.48

    46 Section 9.6.1 of the pro forma LGIA and section 1.8.1 of the pro forma SGIA.

    47 Section 9.6.3 of the pro forma LGIA and section 1.8.2 of the pro forma SGIA.

    48See Payment for Reactive Power, Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-7, app. 1 (Apr. 22, 2014).

    Proposed Compliance Procedures

    19. To comply with the requirements of this Proposal, the Commission proposes to require each public utility 49 transmission provider to submit a compliance filing within 90 days of the effective date of the final revision in this proceeding revising its pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA subject to the Commission's jurisdiction as necessary to demonstrate that it meets the requirements set forth in this Proposal.

    49 For purposes of this Proposal, a public utility is a utility that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce, as defined by the FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (2012). A non-public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with the reciprocity condition of an OATT may satisfy that condition by filing an OATT, which includes the pro forma LGIA and SGIA.

    20. In some cases, public utility transmission providers may have provisions in their currently effective pro forma LGIAs and pro forma SGIAs related to the provision of reactive power by non-synchronous generators that the Commission has deemed to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. Where these pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA provisions will be modified by the final revision, public utility transmission providers must either comply with the final revision or demonstrate that these previously-approved pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA variations continue to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA as modified by the final revision.

    21. The Commission will assess whether each compliance filing satisfies the proposed requirements and principles stated above and issue additional orders as necessary to ensure that each public utility transmission provider meets the requirements of this Proposal and the subsequent final revision.

    22. The Commission proposes that transmission providers that are not public utilities will have to adopt the requirements of this Proposal and subsequent final revision as a condition of maintaining the status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity requirement of Order No. 888.50

    50 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,760-63.

    Information Collection Statement

    23. The collection of information contained in this Proposal to Revise Standard Generator Interconnection Agreements is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).51 OMB's regulations require approval of certain informational collection requirements imposed by an agency.52 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

    51 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).

    52 5 CFR 1320.11 (2015).

    24. The reforms proposed in this Proposal would amend the Commission's standard generator interconnection agreements in accordance with section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission's regulations 53 to require that each public utility transmission provider amend its pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to: (1) Eliminate the exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to provide reactive power; and (2) require that all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators, as well as all existing non-synchronous generators making upgrades to their generation facilities that require new interconnection requests, provide reactive power as a condition of interconnection, as of the effective date of the final revision. The reforms proposed in this Proposal would require filings of pro forma LGIAs and pro forma SGIAs with the Commission. The Commission anticipates the reforms proposed in this Proposal, once implemented, would not significantly change currently existing burdens on an ongoing basis. With regard to those public utility transmission providers that believe that they already comply with the reforms proposed in this Proposal, they could demonstrate their compliance in the filing required 90 days after the effective date of the final revision in this proceeding. The Commission will submit the proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.54

    53 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) (2015).

    54 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).

    25. While the Commission expects the adoption of the reforms proposed in this Proposal to provide significant benefits, the Commission understands that implementation can be a complex and costly endeavor. The Commission solicits comments on the accuracy of provided burden and cost estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents' burdens.

    Burden Estimate and Information Collection Costs: The Commission believes that the burden estimates below are representative of the average burden on respondents. The estimated burden and cost 55 for the requirements contained in this Proposal follow.

    55 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the FERC average salary of $149,489. Subject matter experts found that industry employment costs closely resemble FERC's regarding the FERC-516 information collection.

    Data Collection—FERC 516 Number of
  • applicable
  • registered
  • entities
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden (hours)
  • and cost per response 56
  • Total annual burden hours
  • and total
  • annual cost
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) Conforming LGIA changes to incorporate proposed revisions 132 1 132 7.5
  • $540.00
  • 990 hours.
  • $71,280.00.
  • Conforming SGIA changes to incorporate proposed revisions 132 1 132 7.5
  • $540.00
  • 990 hours.
  • $71,280.00.
  • Total 264 15 hours
  • $1,080
  • 1,980 hours.
  • $142,560.00.
  • Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the total cost of compliance as follows: 57

    56 $149,489/$2,080 = $71.8697 and is rounded to $72.00 per hour.

    57 The costs for Year 1 would consist of filing proposed changes to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA with the Commission within 90 days of the effective date of the final revision plus initial implementation. The Commission does not expect any ongoing costs beyond the initial compliance in Year 1.

    • Year 1: $142,560 ($1,080/utility)

    • Year 2: $0

    After Year 1, the reforms proposed in this Proposal, once implemented, would not significantly change existing burdens on an ongoing basis.

    Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.

    Action: Proposed revisions to an information collection.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096.

    Respondents for This Proposal: Businesses or other for profit and/or not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency of Information: One-time during year one.

    Necessity of Information: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission makes this Proposal to improve the reliability of the electric grid by requiring all newly interconnecting non-synchronous generators to provide reactive power and to ensure that all generators are being treated in a not unduly discriminatory or preferential manner.

    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. The Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.

    26. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873. Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate(s), may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-0710, fax: (202) 395-7285]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following email address: [email protected]. Comments submitted to OMB should include FERC-516 and OMB Control No. 1902-0096.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 58 generally requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected.

    58 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).

    28. To the extent the RFA applies to this proceeding, the Commission estimates that the total number of public utility transmission providers that would have to modify their currently effective pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA is 132. Of these, the Commission estimates the total number that are small entities is 11. The Commission estimates the average total cost of these entities will be minimal, requiring on average 15 hours, or $1,080 in expenses. The Commission does not consider this to be a significant economic impact. As a result, the Commission certifies that the reforms proposed in this Proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Environmental Analysis

    29. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.59 The Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required for this Proposal under section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's regulations, which provides a categorical exemption for approval of actions under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates, charges, classifications, and services.60 The revisions proposed in this Proposal would update and clarify the application of the Commission's standard interconnection requirements to wind generators. Therefore, this Proposal falls within the categorical exemptions provided in the Commission's regulations, and as a result neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required.

    59Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    60 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2015).

    Comment Procedures

    30. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this Proposal to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due January 25, 2016. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-1-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.

    31. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

    32. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    33. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this Proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

    Document Availability

    34. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    35. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.

    36. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariffs.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: November 19, 2015 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29972 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2012-0806] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Connecticut River, Old Saybrook, CT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish three special anchorage areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity Old Saybrook, CT. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels less than 20 meters in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of Old Saybrook, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0806 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, contact Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email [email protected] or Chief Ian Fallon, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone 203-468-4565, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law §  Section U.S.C.the  United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The proposed special anchorage areas are intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions and to promote safe and efficient travel in the navigable channels of the Connecticut River adjacent to Calves Island, and also to aid the town of Old Saybrook in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations by clearly defining the mooring fields currently established by the town. All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

    The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by creating three special anchorage areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the eastern portion of Old Saybrook, CT. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, and 2071.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would create three new special anchorage areas, referred to as special anchorage areas A, B, and C in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the Old Saybrook, CT. Special anchorage area A is approximately 680,800 sq. yards and would be located between Ferry Point and Calves Island, upstream of the I-95/US RT 1 Baldwin Bridge. Special anchorage area B would be approximately 51,200 sq. yards and located just east of North Cove. Special anchorage area C would be approximately 185,400 sq. yards located in North Cove west of the navigable channel. Illustrations showing the locations of these proposed special anchorage areas are available in the docket.

    Vessels less than 20 meters in length are not required to sound signals under Rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83.35) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes under Rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 CFR 83.30) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners using these anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    We expect minimal additional cost impacts on fishing, or recreational boats anchoring because this rule would not affect normal surface navigation. Although this proposed rulemaking may have some impact on the public, the potential impact would be minimized for the following reasons: (1) normal surface navigation will not be affected as these three areas in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the eastern portion of Old Saybrook has been historically used as a mooring field by the town of Old Saybrook; (2) this proposed rule would simply permit eligible vessels in existing mooring areas to not use sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes when at anchor there; (3) it encourages the use of existing mooring areas; and (4) the number of vessels using these special anchorage areas will be limited due to depth (less than or equal to 18 feet).

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Connecticut River in Old Saybrook, CT may be small entities, for the reasons stated above in section IV.A, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of special anchorage grounds. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice of proposed rulemaking as being available in the docket, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 110.55b to subpart A to read as follows:
    § 110.55b Connecticut River, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

    (a) Special anchorage area A. All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 41°19′54.75″ N, longitude 072°21′08.40″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′21.50″ N, longitude 072°20′49.65″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′17.80″ N, longitude 072°20′49.25″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′17.05″ N, longitude 72°20′59″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′25.40″ N, longitude 72°21′00.95″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′29.50″ N, longitude 72°21′17.60″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′35.40″ N, longitude 72°21′22.90″ W; thence to latitude 41°19′52.35″ N, longitude 72°21′26.10″ W; thence to the point of beginning.

    (b) Special anchorage area B. All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 41°17′26″ N, longitude 072°21′04″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′24.60″ N, longitude 072°21′16″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′20″ N, longitude 072°21′09″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′16″ N, longitude 072°21′05″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′16″ N, longitude 072°21′03″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′21.5″ N, longitude 072°21′04.5″ W; thence to the point of beginning.

    (c) Special anchorage area C. All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 41°17′27″ N, longitude 072°21′35″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′24″ N, longitude 072°22′01″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′16″ N, longitude 072°22′00″ W; thence to latitude 41°17′19″ N, longitude 072°21′33″ W; thence to the point of beginning.

    Note to § 110.55b:

    All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83. All anchoring in the areas is under the supervision of the town of Old Saybrook Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated by the authorities of the town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Mariners using these special anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. This area is principally for use by recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors or moorings in place are allowed in this area. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are not allowed. All moorings or anchors shall be placed well within the anchorage areas so that no portion of the hull or rigging will at any time extend outside of the anchorage.

    Dated: November 4, 2015. K.C. Kiefer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30011 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0038] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish 13 anchorage grounds and 1 special anchorage area that are now obsolete in Newark Bay, the East River, Western Long Island Sound, Raritan Bay, and Lower New York Bay. It also proposes to reduce the size of three anchorage grounds in Raritan, Sandy Hook, and Lower New York Bays. This proposed rulemaking is necessary due to the increased size and draft of current commercial vessels operating in the Captain of the Port New York zone, as the existing anchorages have insufficient water depths to accommodate these vessels; the exposure of these anchorages to winds, tides, and currents; and changes in recreational vessel usage patterns in Newark Bay. This proposed rulemaking would provide a higher degree of vessel and environmental safety by reducing the risk of vessels grounding in shallow water, and accurately reflect the anchorages currently in use.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0038 using the following Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of proposed rulemaking, contact Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email [email protected] or Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4195, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register SAA Special Anchorage Area USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCP United States Coast Pilot WAMS Waterways Analysis and Management System II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Anchorage grounds were originally established by the (USACE) on April 25, 1907, pursuant to an Act of Congress approved May 16, 1888. This information was published in the 1909 (USCP) Atlantic Coast, Part IV, From Point Judith to New York, Fifth Edition. Anchorage regulation duties and powers were transferred to the Coast Guard in 1967 (32 FR 17726, Dec. 12, 1967)

    The special anchorage areas (SAAs) were originally established by the USACE and first published in the USCP in 1960. The USCP is a series of nine nautical books published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that encompasses a wide variety of information important to navigators of U.S. waters. The USCP is intended to be used as a supplement to NOAA nautical charts. Topics covered include anchorage grounds, SAAs, and specific anchoring regulations governing their usage.

    The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds and special anchorage areas.

    The specific reasons for this rulemaking are to disestablish 13 anchorage grounds and 1 SAA that are now obsolete and reduce the size of three anchorage grounds that are no longer used by commercial or recreational mariners. The intended purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce the risk of vessels grounding in shallow water and accurately reflect the anchorages currently in use. The USACE New York District was consulted on this regulation and had no objections.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would disestablish five obsolete anchorage grounds in Newark Bay described in 33 CFR 110.155(h)(1) and (h)(3) through (6). During our 2012 WAMS review of Newark Bay, we announced in First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners that we were considering disestablishing anchorage ground numbers 34, 36, 37, 38, and 39. We received one comment that these anchorage grounds should be retained and dredged to a depth of not less than 12 feet at mean low water so vessels could anchor within their boundaries. These anchorage grounds are not a federal project under the jurisdiction of the USACE and thus will not be dredged to a depth that is usable by most commercial vessels.

    During this 2012 WAMS we also sought comment on the proposed disestablishment of the Newark Bay Southeast and Newark Bay Southwest SAAs described in 33 CFR 110.60(d)(1) and (2). We received no comments that these SAAs are used or that they should be retained. These proposed revisions were advertised to the public in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners number 50 in 2011 (dated December 14, 2011) through number 24 in 2012 (dated June 13, 2012). During a 2014 site visit to the Robbins Reef Yacht Club in Bayonne, NJ, the Coast Guard was notified by a club member that the Newark Bay Southeast SAA is still in use. Based on those comments we are no longer considering disestablishing the Newark Bay Southeast SAA. We are, however, proposing to disestablish the Newark Bay Southwest SAA, § 110.60(d)(2).

    This proposed rule would disestablish seven obsolete anchorage grounds in Western Long Island Sound and the East River described in 33 CFR 110.155(a)(2) through (7), and (b)(2). During our 2013 WAMS review of New Rochelle Harbor, Manhasset and Little Neck Bays we announced in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners that we were considering disestablishing anchorage ground numbers 1-A, 1-B, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. We received no comments that these anchorage grounds are being used or that they should be retained. These proposed revisions were advertised to the public in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners number 48 in 2012 (dated November 28, 2012) through number 25 in 2013 (dated June 19, 2013).

    This proposed rule would also disestablish obsolete anchorage ground number 46 in Raritan Bay described in 33 CFR 110.155(j)(4). Additionally, this proposed rule would reduce the size of anchorage ground number 28 described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(3) and anchorage ground number 47 described in 33 CFR 110.155(j)(5) in Raritan and Lower New York Bays. Portions of these two reduced anchorage grounds would be incorporated into revised anchorage grounds, number 26, which would also be reduced in size, described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(1), and revised anchorage ground, number 28, in Raritan and Lower New York Bays described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(3). The existing anchorage ground numbers 26, 28, 46, and 47 cover approximately 59.307 square nautical miles. The proposed revised anchorage ground numbers 26 and 28 would cover approximately 7.877 square nautical miles. In addition, this proposed rule would update the coordinates to 1983 datum for Anchorage Ground number 27 in the Atlantic Ocean described in 33 CFR 110.155(f)(2).

    This rulemaking would also remove regulations regarding navigation and mooring in the vicinity of the Naval Ammunition Depot Pier at Leonardo, NJ, in existing 33 CFR 110.155(f)(1)(i) and (ii) because these requirements are already codified at 33 CFR 165.130. During our 2014 WAMS review of Raritan Bay, we announced in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners we considering disestablishing anchorage ground numbers 46 and 47. We received no comments that these anchorage grounds are being used or that they should be retained in their current configurations. These proposed revisions were advertised to the public in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners number 07 in 2014 (dated February 19, 2014) through number 26 in 2014 (dated July 2, 2014).

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant impact because it is administrative in nature and would not alter current navigational practices on the affected waterways.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within these portions of Newark Bay; the East River near Little Bay; Western Long Island Sound between Throgs Neck, Sands Point, and Larchmont Harbor; and Raritan and Lower New York Bays.

    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule would only codify current navigation practices on the affected waterways. Neither the proposed disestablishment of anchorage grounds nor the size reductions would affect vessels' schedules or their abilities to freely transit near these areas within the Captain of the Port New York zone. The water available in the anchorage grounds to be disestablished is too shallow for most commercial vessels to anchor within and the anchorage grounds in western Long Island Sound and East River are currently unusable as they are exposed to weather, tides, and currents that do not provide a safe anchorage.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves disestablishing 13 obsolete anchorage grounds and 1 obsolete SAA, and reducing the size of two anchorage grounds and combining them into one smaller anchorage ground. This rule may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this document, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    § 110.60 [Amended]
    2. In § 110.60: a. Remove paragraph (d)(2) and redesignate paragraphs (d)(3) through (10) as paragraphs (d)(2) through (9), respectively. b. Amend the note to newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2) by removing “paragraph (d)(3)” and adding “paragraph (d)(2)” in its place. 3. In § 110.155: a. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2) and remove paragraphs (a)(3) through (7); b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2); c. Revise paragraph (f); d. Remove and reserve paragraph (h); e. Revise paragraph (j)(2); and f. Remove paragraphs (j)(3) through (5).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 110.155 Port of New York.

    (f) Lower Bay, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, and Atlantic Ocean—(1) Anchorage No. 26. In Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays all waters bound by the following points: 40°30′06.74″ N., 074°10′04.96″ W.; thence to 40°28′59.44″ N., 074°05′00.00″ W.; thence to 40°28′44.94″ N., 074°05′00.00″ W.; thence to 40°29′05.02″ N., 074°07′30.56″ W.; thence to 40°29′17.49″ N., 074°10′16.50″ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (2) Anchorage No. 27. In the Atlantic Ocean all waters bound by the following points: 40°28′49.27″ N., 074°00′12.13″ W.; thence to 40°28′52.12″ N., 074°00′00.56″ W.; thence to 40°28′40.88″ N., 073°58′51.95″ W.; thence to 40°25′57.91″ N., 073°54′55.56″ W.; thence to 40°23′45.55″ N., 073°54′54.89″ W.; thence to 40°23′45.38″ N., 073°58′32.10″ W.; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (3) Anchorage No. 28. In Lower Bay all waters bound by the following points: 40°30′02.30″ N., 074°08′52.69″ W.; thence to 40°29′10.10″ N., 074°04′59.65″ W.; thence to 40°29′09.99″ N., 074°02′57.75″ W.; thence to 40°31′52.89″ N., 074°02′39.89″ W.; thence to 40°31′59.72″ N., 074°03′25.13″ W.; thence to 40°31′28.57″ N., 074°03′40.70″ W.; thence to 40°30′26.24″ N., 074°05′11.46″ W.; thence to 40°30′19.01″ N., 074°06′21.37″ W.; thence to 40°30′21.53″ N., 074°08′46.19″ W.; thence to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (j) * * *

    (2) Anchorage No. 45. West of the Raritan Bay Channel leading into Arthur Kill; north of the Raritan River Channel leading into Raritan River; and east of the Cutoff Channel between Raritan River and Arthur Kill, except that part of the said area occupied by Anchorage No. 44.

    (i) Vessels must not anchor in the channel to Keyport Harbor west of lines ranging from Keyport Channel Buoy 1 to Keyport Channel Buoy 9, thence through Keyport Channel Buoys 11 and 13 to the northeast corner of the easterly steamboat wharf; and east of a line extending from a point 400 yards west of Keyport Channel Buoy 1 tangent to the west shore at the mouth of Matawan Creek.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    Dated: October 14, 2015. K.C. Keifer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30056 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9937-14] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected]; or Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

    New Tolerances

    1. PP 4F8249. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0314). This notice is a revision to the notice published in the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-67). Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, triclopyr [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid in or on the raw agricultural commodity milk, fat at 0.7 parts per million (ppm); and to increase the tolerance in or on milk from 0.01 ppm to 0.6 ppm. The petitioner also requests to amend 40 CFR part 180.417 by establishing tolerances for residues of triclopyr [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid and its metabolite 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of triclopyr, in or on the raw agricultural commodities of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep meat byproducts at 0.7 ppm; by increasing tolerances in cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep fat from 0.05 ppm to 0.09 ppm; and by increasing tolerances in cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep meat from 0.05 ppm to 0.08 ppm. An analytical method using electron capture gas chromatography is used to measure and evaluate the chemical triclopyr. Contact: RD.

    2. PP 5E8402. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0712). Interregional Research No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201-W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, clomazone 2-(2-chlorophenyl)methyl-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone in or on asparagus at 0.05 parts per million (ppm); and vegetable soybean (edamame) at 0.05 ppm. The analytical method consisting of an acid reflux, a C18 solid phase extraction (SPE), a Florisil SPE clean-up followed by gas chromatography (GC)-mass selective detection (MSD) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical clomazone. Contact: RD.

    3. PP 5F8381. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.626 for residues of the fungicide, prothioconazole in or on cotton, undelinted seed (crop subgroup 20C at 0.4 parts per million (ppm). The liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical prothioconazole. Contact: RD.

    4. PP 5F8381. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.626 for residues of the fungicide, prothioconazole in or on sugar beet, roots at 0.3 parts per million (ppm). The LC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical prothioconazole. Contact: RD.

    5. PP 5F8361. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0488). MacIntosh and Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of AgBiTech Pty Ltd, 8 Rocla Ct., Glenvale, Queensland 4350, Australia), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the microbial insecticide Spodoptera frugiperda Multiple Nucleopolyhedrovirus—3AP2 in or on food crops. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the petitioner is requesting an exemption from tolerance. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: November 16, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29893 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 90 [PS Docket 12-94, PS Docket 06-229, WT Docket No. 06-150, DA 15-1253] Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on FirstNet's Incumbent Relocation Proposal AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document seeks comment on the ex parte proposal made by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to facilitate the relocation of incumbent public safety communications systems operating in the 758-769/788-799 MHz spectrum band (Band 14) in advance of the deployment and operation of FirstNet's nationwide broadband public safety network (NPSBN).

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before December 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Marenco, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0838.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 15-1253, released on November 5, 2015. The document is available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The complete text of this document also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

    1. On October 20, 2015, FirstNet filed an ex parte letter stating that its Board recently approved a Spectrum Relocation Grant Program designed to facilitate the relocation of Band 14 incumbents, and that it expects a Federal Funding Opportunity for the grant program to be released in early 2016. FirstNet further requests “that the continuation of Commission licenses or other authorizations under Band 14 by any incumbent be conditioned upon the requirement that no operation on Band 14 be permitted without the express consent of FirstNet after July 31, 2017.” FirstNet also requests that “[i]n addition or in the alternative, . . . the Commission consider conditioning any continued operation on Band 14 on the cessation of all operations on Band 14 within 90 days written notice to the Band 14 incumbent(s) from FirstNet that deployment of the NPSBN is to begin in its State.”

    2. In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in these dockets, the Commission sought comment “on the appropriate mechanism to transition incumbent narrowband operators out of [Band 14] and on the timeframe by which such a transition should be accomplished,” 78 FR 24138, April 24, 2013. Specifically, the Commission asked whether it could require FirstNet to manage this transition process, or to provide funds for the process, and whether the Commission should establish a hard deadline by which relocation should be accomplished. While the Commission has already received comments on these issues, it believes that seeking expedited comment on FirstNet's more specific request will help ensure a complete and comprehensive record, and is consistent with FirstNet's expectation of release of a Federal Funding Opportunity for its related grant program in early 2016. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on FirstNet's request in light of the 2013 Notice and the associated record.

    3. Interested parties may file comments until fourteen days after the publication of this document in the Federal Register. All pleadings are to reference PS Docket 12-94, PS Docket 06-229 and WT Docket No. 06-150. This proceeding is 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 § 1.1206(b). 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 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.

    4. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    • Paper Filers: Parties that 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.

    5. 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 St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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.

    6. 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).

    7. For further information, contact: Roberto Mussenden, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1428 or [email protected]

    Federal Communications Commission. David L. Furth, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30111 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 227 Wednesday, November 25, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 151028999-5999-01] Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of Records AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NOAA-1, Applicants for the NOAA Corps.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the Department of Commerce's (Department) proposal to amend the system of records entitled “COMMERCE/NOAA-1, Applicants for the NOAA Corps,” under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned Officer Corps (NOAA Corps) is the uniformed service of NOAA, a bureau of the Department of Commerce. The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who serve their country by supporting NOAA's mission of surveying the Earth's oceans, coasts, and atmosphere to ensure the economic and physical well-being of the Nation. This record system is necessary in order to identify both minimum eligibility and level of qualification of applicants for the NOAA Corps.

    DATES:

    To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2015. Unless comments are received, the amended system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Director, NOAA Corps, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Persons wishing to be considered for a NOAA Corps Commission must submit a complete application package, including NOAA Form 56-42, at least three letters of recommendation, NOAA Form 56-42A, and official transcripts. A personal interview must also be conducted. All persons shall meet the eligibility requirements prior to their appointments into the NOAA Corps. The requirements must include a bachelor's degree and at least 48 credit hours of science, engineering, or other disciplines related to NOAA's missions (including either calculus or physics), have satisfactorily passed the prescribed mental and physical evaluations in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 3021(a)(2)(A), 3021(a)(3); 10 U.S.C. 532(a)(4), and ability to complete 20 years of active duty commissioned service prior to their 62nd birthday.

    COMMERCE/NOAA-1 System Name:

    COMMERCE/NOAA-1, Applicants for the NOAA Corps.

    Security Classification:

    Moderate.

    System Location:

    Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:

    Applicants for appointment in the NOAA Corps and persons providing references.

    Categories of Records in the System:

    Name, date of birth, place of birth, country of citizenship (if U.S., how citizenship acquired), mailing address, physical address, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security number, selective service registration, educational information (names and locations of schools, graduation dates, areas of study, years attended, degrees) GPAs for undergraduate and graduate programs, courses (and credit hours) in progress or proposed prior to graduation, college transcripts, credit hours in applicable fields of study, work experience (name and location of company, position title, supervisor contact information, description of work, hours, salary and reason for leaving, whether employment is/was at a professional level), letters of reference, physical examinations, statements of prior military service (rejections, conscientious objector status, type of discharge, current obligations), recruiting officer's interview evaluation form, personal resumes, special qualifications and skills, and names of references.

    Authority for Maintenance of the System:

    The statutory authorities for this system of records are 33 U.S.C. Chapter 43, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps and PL 112-166 Section 2. (gg)(1), Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

    Purposes:

    The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who support NOAA's mission of surveying the Earth's oceans, coasts, and atmosphere to ensure the economic and physical well-being of the Nation. This record system is necessary in order to identify both minimum eligibility and level of qualification of applicants for the NOAA Corps. The system is designed as follows: Application and reference information may be submitted on a year-round basis, but the primary periods of collection are typically immediately preceding summer and winter college graduations. Completed applications are examined by the NOAA Officer Personnel Board in order to rate and/or assess the level of qualification, suitability, and availability of candidates for appointment. NOAA Form 56-42 and NOAA Form 56-42A are now fully electronic, the result of efforts to reduce paperwork, clarify the collection process and improve the quality of applicant responses.

    Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Commerce (Department). The records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed as a routine use as stated below. The Department will, when so authorized, make the determination as to the relevancy of a record prior to its decision to disclose a document.

    1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records, may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.

    2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, hearing officer or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations, administrative appeals and hearings.

    3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.

    4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requires disclosure thereof.

    5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

    6. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.

    7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.

    9. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: For personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.

    10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (i.e. GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals.

    11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    Disclosure to Consumer Reporting Agencies:

    Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).

    Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records in the System: Storage:

    Computerized data base; paper records in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked rooms. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The database user identification/password is issued to individuals by authorized personnel.

    Retrievability:

    Records are organized and retrieved by the individual's name.

    Safeguards:

    The system of records is stored in a building with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facility must register and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. Only those that have the need to know, to carry out the official duties of their job, have access to the information. Paper records are maintained in secured file cabinets in areas that are accessible only to authorized personnel of the Data Collection Agent. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The user identification/password is issued to individuals by authorized personnel. OMAO staff and contractors, to whom access to this information is granted in accordance with this system of records routine uses provision, are instructed on the confidential nature of this information.

    All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-23 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398, and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.

    Retention and Disposal:

    Records are destroyed after three years, if rejected, unless applicant indicates a desire for reconsideration. If selected and appointed to the NOAA Corps, the application becomes a permanent part of the officer's Official Personnel Folder.

    System Manager and Address:

    Director, NOAA Corps, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    Notification Procedure:

    See NOAA Corps Directive, Chapter 6, Part 16107, Requests for Information.

    Record Access Procedures:

    See NOAA Corps Directive, Chapter 6, Part 16107, Requests for Information.

    Contesting Record Procedures:

    The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4b. Use above address.

    Record Source Categories:

    Subject individuals, personal references, the NOAA Corps officer who recruited the individual, and those authorized by the individual to furnish information.

    Exemptions Claimed for the System:

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) this system of records is exempted from the notice, access, and contest requirements (under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f)) of the agency regulations in order to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, and to maintain access to sources of information which are necessary to determine an applicant's suitability for employment in the NOAA Corps.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Michael J. Toland, Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29987 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1984] Grant of Authority; Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone Under the Alternative Site Framework Western Kentucky

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Paducah McCracken County Riverport Authority (the Grantee), has made application to the Board (B-21-2015, docketed April 10, 2015, requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone under the ASF with a service area comprised of portions of McCracken and Livingston Counties, Kentucky, adjacent to the Evansville, Indiana Customs and Border Protection port of entry, and proposed Site 1 would be categorized as a magnet site;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (80 FR 20469, April 16, 2015) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 294, as described in the application, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 1 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of November 2015. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and Executive Officer, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30067 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-80-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 38—Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Reorganization (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting authority to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 18, 2015.

    FTZ 38 was approved by the Board on May 4, 1987 (Board Order 131, 43 FR 20526, May 12, 1978) and reorganized under the ASF on October 7, 2010 (Board Order 1710, 75 FR 65304, October 22, 2010). The zone currently has a service area that includes the Counties of Greenville, Spartanburg, Cherokee, Oconee, Union, Anderson and Laurens, South Carolina.

    The applicant is requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Pickens, Greenwood and Abbeville Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Greenville/Spartanburg Customs and Border Protection port of entry.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 25, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 8, 2016.

    A copy of the application 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 Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: November 18, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29996 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-78-2013] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 141—Rochester, New York, Termination of Review of Notification of Proposed Production Activity American Tactical Imports (Deconstruction of Firearms), Rochester, New York

    Upon request by the County of Monroe, grantee of FTZ 141, the FTZ Board staff has terminated review of a notification of proposed production activity on behalf of American Tactical Imports within a now-expired site of FTZ 141 in Rochester, New York. The notification was received on July 29, 2013 (78 FR 50375-50376, 8/19/2013). The termination is the result of changed circumstances, and the case has been closed without prejudice.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30066 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-977] High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on high pressure steel cylinders (“steel cylinders”) from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”) for the period of review June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Devine or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238 or (202) 482-4031, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 15, 2015, Norris Cylinder Company (“Petitioner”) submitted a request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel cylinders from the PRC for a single company, Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (“BTIC”).1 On June 30, BTIC also submitted a request for administrative review of the order.2 On August 3, 2015, the Department published the notice of initiation of an administrative review of the order for the period of review June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.3 On September 9, 2015, Petitioner and BTIC both withdrew their requests for review.4

    1See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner, “High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review and Entry of Appearance,” June 15, 2015.

    2See Letter to the Secretary from BTIC, “Request for the Third Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, A-570-977 (POR: 06/01/14-05/31/15),” June 30, 2015.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 45947 (August 3, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”).

    4See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner, “Withdrawal of Request for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China,” (September 9, 2015); Letter to the Secretary from BTIC, “Withdrawal of Review Request in the Third Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China,” (September 9, 2015).

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, all parties withdrew their requests for administrative reviews within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of steel cylinders from the PRC. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

    Notifications

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: November 16, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29944 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-602-809, A-351-845, A-588-874, A-580-883, A-421-813, A-489-826, A-412-825] Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective date: November 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295 (Australia); Yang Jin Chun at (202) 482-5760 (Brazil); Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (Japan); Matthew Renkey at (202) 482-2312 (the Republic of Korea (“Korea”)); Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665, (the Netherlands); Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (the Republic of Turkey (“Turkey”)); and Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482-1757 (the United Kingdom), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 31, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated antidumping duty (“AD”) investigations of imports of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.1 The notice of initiation stated that, in accordance with section 733(b)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), we would issue our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of initiation, unless postponed. Currently, the preliminary determinations in these investigations are due no later than January 19, 2016.2

    1See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigations, 80 FR 54261(September 9, 2015).

    2 The deadline for the preliminary determinations is normally 140 days after we initiated these investigations, or January 18, 2016, which is a Federal holiday. Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this instance, January 19, 2016). See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Sections 733(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act permit the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered, the novelty of the issues presented, or the number of firms whose activities must be investigated, and additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination. Under this section of the Act, the Department may postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

    The Department determines that the parties involved in these hot-rolled steel AD investigations are cooperating, and that the investigations are extraordinarily complicated. Additional time is required to analyze the questionnaire responses and issue appropriate requests for clarification and additional information.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the Department is postponing the time period for the preliminary determinations of these investigations by 50 days, to March 8, 2016. Pursuant to section 735(a)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29936 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments From the Public for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Actions on Imports From Korea AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel. (202) 482-1550, Maria.D'[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Article 4.1 of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”) provides for a textile and apparel safeguard mechanism. This safeguard mechanism applies when, as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, a Korean textile or apparel article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof to a U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. In these circumstances, Article 4.1 permits the United States to (a) suspend any further reduction in the rate of duty provided for under Annex 2-B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on the article; or (b) increase duties on the imported article from Korea to a level that does not exceed the lesser of the prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (“NTR”)/most-favored-nation (“MFN”) duty rate for the article or the U.S. NTR/MFN duty rate in effect on the day before the Agreement enters into force.

    The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under section 332(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under section 332(b) of the Act.

    In Proclamation No. 8783 (77 FR 14265, March 9, 2012), the President delegated to CITA his authority under Subtitle C of Title III of the Act with respect to textile and apparel safeguard measures.

    The textile and apparel safeguard mechanism will be of considerable benefit to firms manufacturing textile and apparel goods in the United States in the event that an industry finds itself to be adversely impacted by preferential duty or duty-free imports of textiles and apparel from Korea.

    CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Korea, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile and apparel industry, subject to section 332(b) of the Act.

    An interested party in the U.S. domestic textile and apparel industry may file a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA. Consistent with longstanding CITA practice in considering textile and apparel safeguard actions, CITA will consider an interested party to be an entity (which may be a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers) that is representative of either: (A) A domestic producer or producers of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Korean textile or apparel article; or (B) a domestic producer or producers of a component used in the production of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Korean textile or apparel article.

    In order for a request to be considered, the requestor must provide the following information in support of a claim that a textile or apparel article from Korea is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof, to a U.S. industry producing an article that is like, or directly competitive with, the imported article: (1) Name and description of the imported article concerned; (2) import data demonstrating that imports of a Korea origin textile or apparel article that are like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the domestic industry concerned are increasing in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article; (3) U.S. domestic production of the like or directly competitive articles of U.S. origin indicating the nature and extent of the serious damage or actual threat thereof, along with an affirmation that to the best of the requester's knowledge, the data represent substantially all of the domestic production of the like or directly competitive article(s) of U.S. origin; (4) imports from Korea as a percentage of the domestic market of the like or directly competitive article; and (5) all data available to the requester showing changes in productivity, utilization of capacity, inventories, exports, wages, employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, and any other information, relating to the existence of serious damage or actual threat thereof caused by imports from Korea to the industry producing the like or directly competitive article that is the subject of the request. To the extent that such information is not available, the requester should provide best estimates and the basis therefore.

    If CITA determines that the request provides the information necessary for it to be considered, CITA will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments regarding the request. The comment period shall be 30 calendar days. The notice will include a summary of the request. Any interested party may submit information to rebut, clarify, or correct public comments submitted by any interested party.

    CITA will make a determination on any request it considers within 60 calendar days of the close of the comment period. If CITA is unable to make a determination within 60 calendar days, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register, including the date it will make a determination.

    If a determination under section 322(b) of the Act is affirmative, CITA may provide tariff relief to a U.S. industry to the extent necessary to remedy or prevent serious damage or actual threat thereof and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to import competition. The import tariff relief is effective beginning on the date that CITA's affirmative determination is published in the Federal Register.

    Entities submitting requests, responses or rebuttals to CITA may submit both a public and confidential version of their submissions. If the request is accepted, the public version will be posted on the dedicated Korea Free Trade Agreement textile safeguards section of the Office of Textile and Apparel (OTEXA) Web site. The confidential version of the request, responses or rebuttals will not be shared with the public as it may contain business confidential information. Entities submitting responses or rebuttals may use the public version of the request as a basis for responses.

    II. Method of Collection

    When an interested party files a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA, ten copies of any such request must be provided in a paper format. If business confidential information is provided, two copies of a non-confidential version must also be provided. If CITA determines that the request provides the necessary information to be considered, it publishes a Federal Register notice seeking public comments on the request. To the extent business confidential information is provided, a non-confidential version must also be provided. Any interested party may submit information to rebut, clarify, or correct public comments submitted by any interested party.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0269.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Business.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 14 (4 for Request; 10 for Comments).

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours (for each Request) 4 hours (for each Comment).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 56 hours (16 hours for Requests; 40 hours for Comments).

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,800.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29932 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-535-904] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kaitlin Wojnar at (202) 482-3857, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petition

    On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Pakistan, filed in proper form on behalf of Bull Moose Tube Company, EXLTUBE, Wheatland Tube Company, and Western Tube and Conduit (collectively, Petitioners).1 The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of circular welded pipe from Pakistan.2 Petitioners are domestic producers of circular welded pipe.3

    1See Letter from Petitioners, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” October 28, 2015 (the Petition), Volumes I and IV.

    2Id., Volume II. Petitioners also filed AD petitions regarding the Sultanate of Oman, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    3Id., Volume I at 2.

    On November 2, 2015, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.4 Petitioners filed responses to these requests on November 4, 2015.5 Petitioners submitted additional supplemental information on November 9, 2015,6 and November 10, 2015.7

    4See Letter from the Department, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Pipe from Pakistan: Supplemental Questions,” November 2, 2015 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); Letter from the Department, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Pipe from Pakistan: Supplemental Questions,” November 2, 2015.

    5See Letter from Petitioners, “Response to Supplemental Questions Regarding Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan,” November 4, 2015 (General Issues Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Response to the Department's November 2, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume IV of the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,” November 4, 2015.

    6See Letter from Petitioners, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality-Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Response to Issues Identified in the November 6, 2015 Phone Call,” November 9, 2015 (Second General Issues Supplement).

    7See Letter from Petitioners, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality-Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Second Response to Issues Identified in the November 6, 2015 Phone Call,” November 10, 2015 (Third General Issues Supplement).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of Pakistan (GOP) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of circular welded pipe from Pakistan and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs in Pakistan on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that Petitioners are requesting.8

    8See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.9

    9See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from Pakistan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to and received responses from Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.10 As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,11 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,12 all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, December 7, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, December 17, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

    10See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement; Second General Issues Supplement.

    11See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    12See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation, as well as the AD investigations of circular welded pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).13 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    13See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOP of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOP the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD allegations.14 Such consultations were held at the Department's main building on November 9, 2015.15

    14See Letter from the Department, “Petitions for Countervailing Duties on Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan,” October 28, 2015.

    15See Department Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Consultations with the Government of Pakistan,” November 9, 2015.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,16 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.17

    16See section 771(10) of the Act.

    17See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that circular welded pipe constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.18

    18 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan (Pakistan CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II—Analysis of Industry Support (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the Department's main building.

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” at Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, then compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.19 Because total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2014 is not reasonably available and Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,20 we have relied upon the shipment data provided by Petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.21

    19See General Issues Supplement at 3-6, Exhibit I-13, and Exhibit I-14; see also Second General Issues Supplement at 1, Exhibits I-17 through I-19; Third General Issues Supplement at Exhibit I-21.

    20See Petition, Volume I at 3 and Exhibit I-2; see also General Issues Supplement at 3-4, Exhibits I-13, and Exhibit I-14.

    21 For further discussion, see Pakistan CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, Third General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.22 First, the Petition establishes support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 23 of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).24 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product.25 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.26 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    22Id.

    23 As mentioned above, Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states “production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.”

    24See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Pakistan CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

    25See Pakistan CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

    26Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.27

    27Id.

    Injury Test

    Because Pakistan is a “Subsidies Agreement Country,” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Pakistan materially injures, or threatens material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. Petitioners allege that subject imports from Pakistan exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under the Act.28 In CVD investigations, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise must exceed a negligibility threshold of three percent. Section 771(24)(B) of the Act, however, provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing and least-developed countries must exceed a negligibility threshold of four percent.29 Petitioners demonstrate that subject imports from Pakistan, which has been designated as a least-developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the four percent negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.30

    28See Petition, Volume I at 17-18, Exhibit I-7, and Exhibit I-8; see also General Issues Supplement at 8-10 and Exhibit I-11.

    29See Pakistan CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.

    30Id.

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, reduced shipments and a plant closure leading to job losses, increased inventories and inventory overhang in the U.S. market, and decline in profitability.31 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.32

    31See Petition, Volume I at 15-23, Exhibits I-6 through I-9; see also General Issues Supplement at 6-10, Exhibit I-11, Exhibit I-13, and Exhibit I-15.

    32See Pakistan CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.

    Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting the allegations.

    Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of circular welded pipe in Pakistan benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOP. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of circular welded pipe from Pakistan receive countervailable subsidies from the GOP.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.33 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.34 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.35

    33See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    34See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    35See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the 14 alleged programs in Pakistan. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    Petitioners named six companies as producers/exporters of circular welded pipe in Pakistan.36 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of circular welded pipe during the POI under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.

    36See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit I-4.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOP via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of circular welded pipe from Pakistan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.37 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.38 Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    37See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    38See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.39 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 40 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    39See section 782(b) of the Act.

    40See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain-end, beveled-end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon-quality” includes products in which:

    (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated: (i) 1.80 percent of manganese; (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon; (iii) 1.00 percent of copper; (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; (v) 1.25 percent of chromium; (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; (vii) 0.40 percent of lead; (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above. Covered products may also possess one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in nominal O.D.; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Wall thickness in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of this investigation does not include:

    (a) pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192; (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (also known as Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242; (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding; (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.50.5030, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope.

    [FR Doc. 2015-29946 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-523-812, A-535-903, A-565-803, A-520-807, A-552-820] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Johnson at (202) 482-4929 (the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)); David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870 (Pakistan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)); or Dennis McClure at (202) 482-5973 (the Philippines), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions

    On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of Bull Moose Tube Company; EXLTUBE; Wheatland Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group; and Western Tube and Conduit (Petitioners).1 The AD petitions were accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition on imports from Pakistan. Petitioners are domestic producers of circular welded pipe.2

    1See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated October 28, 2015 (the Petitions).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.

    On November 2 and 6, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.3 Petitioners filed responses to these requests on November 4, 5, 9 and 10, 2015.4

    3See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Supplemental Questions,” dated November 2, 2015 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from (country): Supplemental Questions” on each of the country-specific records, dated November 2, 2015; Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Philippines: Supplemental Questions,” dated November 6, 2015; and Memorandum from Whitney Schablik to the File, dated November 6, 2015.

    4See “Response to the Department's November 2, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume I of the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,” dated November 4, 2015 (General Issues Supplement); see also the responses to the Department's November 2, 2015 questionnaires regarding the remaining antidumping volumes of the Petition for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, dated November 4-5, 2015; response to the Department's November 6, 2015, second supplemental questionnaire regarding the Philippines, dated November 9, 2015; Second General Issues Supplement to the Petition, dated November 9, 2015 (Second General Issues Supplement); and Third General Issues Supplement to the Petition, dated November 10, 2015 (Third General Issues Supplement).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.5

    5See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on October 28, 2015, the period of investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, for Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the UAE, and April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, for Vietnam.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department discussed with Petitioners the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.6

    6See Memorandum from Whitney Schablik to The File, dated November 6, 2015; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at Exhibit I-16.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, December 7, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.7 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, December 17, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.

    7See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).8 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    8See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will be giving interested parties an opportunity to provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of circular welded pipe to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Subsequent to the publication of this notice, the Department will be releasing a proposed list of physical characteristics and product-comparison criteria, and interested parties will have the opportunity to provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics used by manufacturers to describe circular welded pipe, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,9 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.10

    9See section 771(10) of the Act.

    10See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we determined that circular welded pipe constitutes a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.11

    11 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman AD Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan (Pakistan AD Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Republic of the Philippines (Philippines AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates (UAE AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.12 Because total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2014 is not reasonably available and Petitioners established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,13 we relied upon the shipment data provided by Petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.14

    12See General Issues Supplement, at 3-6 and Exhibits I-13 and I-14; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibits I-17 through I-19; and Third General Issues Supplement, at Exhibit I-21.

    13See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-13 and I-14.

    14 For further discussion, see Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, UAE AD Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, Third General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners established industry support.15 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 16 of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).17 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product.18 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.19 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    15Id.

    16 As mentioned above, Petitioners established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states “production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.”

    17See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, UAE AD Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    18See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, UAE AD Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    19Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department to initiate.20

    20Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than fair value. In addition, Petitioners allege that subject imports from Oman, Pakistan, the UAE, and Vietnam exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.21

    21See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-18 and Exhibits I-7 and I-8; see also General Issues Supplement, at 8-9.

    With regard to the Philippines, while the allegedly dumped imports from the Philippines do not exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility, Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that these imports will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold.22 Petitioners' arguments are consistent with the statutory criteria for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.

    22See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-18 and Exhibits I-7 and I-8; see also General Issues Supplement, at 9-10.

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; reduced shipments and a plant closure leading to job losses; increased inventories and inventory overhang in the U.S. market; and decline in profitability.23 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.24

    23See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12-23 and Exhibit I-6 through I-9; see also General Issues Supplement, at 6-10 and Exhibits I-11, I-13 and I-15.

    24See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, UAE AD Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam, Petitioners based export price (EP) U.S. prices on average unit values (AUVs) of U.S. imports from those countries.25 Where applicable, Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.26

    25See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, UAE AD Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    26See Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist and Philippines AD Initiation Checklist.

    Normal Value

    For Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the UAE, Petitioners provided home market price information obtained through market research for circular welded pipe produced, and offered for sale, in each of these countries.27 For all four of these countries, Petitioners provided an affidavit or declaration from a market researcher for the price information.28 Petitioners made no adjustments to the offer prices to calculate NV for Oman, Pakistan, or UAE, as no adjustments were warranted by the terms associated with the offers.29 With regard to the Philippines, Petitioners made deductions for value added taxes and other expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.30

    27See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, and UAE AD Initiation Checklist.

    28Id.; see also Memorandum to the File, “Telephone Call to Foreign Market Researcher,” on each of the country-specific records, dated November 6, 2015 (Oman), November 5, 2015 (Pakistan), November 6, 2015 (the Philippines), and November 6, 2015 (the UAE).

    29See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist, and UAE AD Initiation Checklist.

    30See Philippines AD Initiation Checklist.

    For Oman, the Philippines, and the UAE, Petitioners provided information that sales of circular welded pipe in the respective home markets were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). For these countries, Petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).31 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.

    31See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, and UAE AD Initiation Checklist.

    With respect to Vietnam, Petitioners stated that the Department has found Vietnam to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every previous less-than-fair-value investigation.32 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for Vietnam has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of Vietnam's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

    32See Volume III of the Petitions, at 1-2.

    Petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs, factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are both available and reliable.33

    33Id., at 2-3.

    Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    Factors of Production

    Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on a petitioning U.S. producer's consumption rates for producing circular welded pipe, as they did not have access to the consumption rates of Vietnamese producers of the subject merchandise.34 Petitioners valued the estimated factors of production using surrogate values from India.35

    34Id., at 3.

    35Id., at 4-10 and Exhibit III-C; see also, generally, Vietnam AD Supplemental Questionnaire Response.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    Petitioners valued the FOPs for raw materials (i.e., steel, steel scrap offset) using reasonably available, public import data for India from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the most recent six-month period for which data is available.36 Petitioners excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly-available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average import values exclude imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country. The Department made adjustments to Petitioners' calculation of these surrogate values.37

    36See Volume III of the Petitions, at 4-6 and Exhibit III-C-2; see also, Vietnam AD Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit III-S-5.

    37See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    Valuation of Labor

    Petitioners valued labor using India labor data published by the International Labor Organization (ILO).38 Specifically, Petitioners relied on industry-specific wage rate data from Chapter 6A of the ILO's “Yearbook of Labor Statistics” publication.39 As the Indian wage data are daily wages from 2005 and reported in Indian Rupees, Petitioners converted the wage rates to hourly rates, adjusted them for inflation, and converted them to U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.40 Petitioners then applied that resulting labor rate to the labor hours expended by the U.S. producer of circular welded pipe.41 The Department made adjustments to Petitioners' calculation of the inflator and labor rate.42

    38See Volume III of the Petitions, at 8-9 and Exhibit III-C-6; see also, Vietnam AD Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit III-S-6.

    39Id.

    40Id.

    41Id.

    42See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    Valuation of Energy

    Petitioners used public information, as reported by the Central Electric Authority (CEA) of India (the Government of India's electricity authority), to value electricity.43 This 2008 CEA price information was converted from Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars in order to be compared to the U.S producer factor usage rates.44 The cost of natural gas in India was derived from an International Energy Agency working paper entitled “Natural Gas in India,” and the value was reported in U.S. Dollars and million British thermal units (mmBTU).45 Using universal conversion factors, Petitioners converted that cost into a per metric ton price to ensure the proper comparison.46

    43Id. at 7, 11 and Exhibit III-C-4.

    44Id.

    45Id. at 8, 11 and Exhibit III-C-5.

    46Id.

    Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit) using the 2014-2015 audited financial statement of Ratnamani Metals and Tubes, Ltd., an Indian producer of circular welded pipe.47

    47Id. at 9-10, 11 and Exhibit III-C-7.

    Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Oman, the Philippines and the UAE, Petitioners calculated COM based on Petitioners' experience adjusted for known differences between their industry in the United States and the industry of the respective country during the proposed POI.48 Using publicly-available data to account for price differences, Petitioners multiplied their usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture circular welded pipe steel in each country.49 Labor rates were derived from publicly-available sources, and multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.50 To determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements of producers of comparable merchandise operating in the respective foreign country or their own experience.51 For Oman and the UAE, we made an adjustment to these rates.52

    48See Oman AD Initiation Checklist, Philippines AD Initiation Checklist, and UAE AD Initiation Checklist.

    49Id.

    50Id.

    51Id.

    52Id.

    Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, Petitioners calculated NVs for Oman, the Philippines and the UAE based on CV.53 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. Petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, and financial expenses, to calculate COP.54 Petitioners relied on the financial statements of the same producer that they used for calculating manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate for Oman.55 For the Philippines and the UAE, Petitioners conservatively did not include profit in their CV calculations. We continued to apply the same adjustments to Petitioners' calculations of factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates as we made for the calculation of COP for Oman and the UAE.56

    53Id.

    54Id.

    55Id.

    56Id.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for circular welded pipe are as follows: (1) Oman ranges from 98.87 to 105.58 percent; 57 (2) Pakistan is 11.80 percent; 58 (3) the Philippines is 21.86 percent; 59 and (4) the UAE ranges from 47.06 to 54.27 percent.60

    57See Oman AD Initiation Checklist.

    58See Pakistan AD Initiation Checklist.

    59See Philippines AD Initiation Checklist.

    60See UAE AD Initiation Checklist.

    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for circular welded pipe from Vietnam is 113.18 percent.61

    61See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.62 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.63 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.64

    62See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    63See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    64Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    Petitioners named six companies in Pakistan,65 two companies in the Philippines,66 and eight companies in the UAE,67 as producers/exporters of circular welded pipe. Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed with the scope in Appendix I, below. We also intend to place the CBP data on the record within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    65See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-3.

    66Id.

    67Id.

    Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or import data from CBP to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, Petitioners identified only one company as a producer/exporter of circular welded pipe in Oman: Al Jazeera Tube Steel Company.68 We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Oman. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this investigation (i.e., the company cited above).

    68Id.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

    With respect to Vietnam, Petitioners named three companies as producers/exporters of circular welded pipe.69 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity-and-value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    69Id.

    Exporters/producers of circular welded pipe from Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all Vietnam exporters/producers no later than December 1, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.70 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the Vietnam investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.71 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and are selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents from Vietnam submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

    70See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    71 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.72

    72See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of circular welded pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the UAE, and/or Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.73 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 74 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    73See section 733(a) of the Act.

    74Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 75 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.76 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    75See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    76See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.77 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 78 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    77See section 782(b) of the Act.

    78See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigations

    These investigations cover welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

    (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated: (i) 1.80 percent of manganese; (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon; (iii) 1.00 percent of copper; (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; (v) 1.25 percent of chromium; (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; (vii) 0.40 percent of lead; (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L, is also covered by the scope of these investigations when it meets the physical description set forth above. Covered products may also possess one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50mm) in nominal O.D.; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Wall thickness in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of these investigations does not include:

    (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192; (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (aka Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242; (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding; (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to these investigations are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.50.5030, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope.

    [FR Doc. 2015-29988 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Foreign-Trade Zone Applications AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher J. Kemp, Department of Commerce, Office of Foreign-Trade Zones, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-0862, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Foreign-Trade Zone Application is the vehicle by which individual firms or organizations apply for foreign-trade zone (FTZ) status, for subzone status, production authority, modifications of existing zones, or for waivers. The FTZ Act and Regulations (19 U.S.C. 81b and 81f; 15 CFR 400.21-25, 43(f)) set forth the requirements for applications and other requests to the FTZ Board. The Act and Regulations require that applications for new or modified zones contain information on facilities, financing, operational plans, proposed production operations, need for FTZ authority, and economic impact, where applicable. Any request involving production authority requires specific information on the foreign status components and finished products involved. Applications for production activity can involve issues related to domestic industry and trade policy impact. Such applications must include specific information on the customs-tariff related savings that result from zone procedures and the economic consequences of permitting such savings. The FTZ Board needs complete and accurate information on the proposed operation and its economic effects because the Act and Regulations authorize the Board to restrict or prohibit operations that are detrimental to the public interest. The Regulations (15 CFR 400.43(f)) also require specific information for applications requesting waivers by parties impacted by 400.43(d). This information is necessary to assess the likelihood of the proposed activity resulting in a violation of the the uniform treatment provisions of the FTZ Act and Regulations.

    II. Method of Collection

    U.S. firms or organizations submit applications in paper format along with an electronic copy to the Office of Foreign-Trade Zones.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0139.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: State, local, or tribal governments or not-for-profit institutions applying for foreign-trade zone status, for subzone status, modification of existing zones, production authority or for waivers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 248.

    Estimated Time Per Response: 9 to 131 hours (depending on type of application).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,128.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $141,388.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29915 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-856, A-570-032] Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and The People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Bailey at (202) 482-0193 (Canada) and Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petitions

    On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (iron transfer drive components) from Canada and the PRC, filed in proper form on behalf of TB Wood's Incorporated (TB Woods) (Petitioner).1 The AD petitions were accompanied by one countervailing duty (CVD) petition for the PRC.2 Petitioner is a domestic producer of iron transfer drive components.3

    1See the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the PRC, dated October 28, 2015 (the Petitions).

    2See the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components the PRC, dated October 28, 2015.

    3See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.

    On November 3, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.4 Petitioner filed responses to these requests on November 5, 6 and 10, 2015.5

    4See Letters from the Department to Petitioner entitled “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada: Supplemental Questions” dated November 3, 2015; “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions” dated November 3, 2015; and “Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China and Antidumping Duties on Imports from Canada: Supplemental Questions” dated November 3, 2015 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire).

    5See “Re: Response to the Department's November 3, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume I of the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,” dated November 6, 2015 (General Issues Supplement); “Re: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Response to the Department's November 3, 2015 Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume II of the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties,” dated November 6, 2015 (Canada Supplemental Response); and “Re: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Response to the Department's November 3, 2015 Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume III of the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties,” dated November 6, 2015 (Canada Supplemental Response); and “Re: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Response to the Department's November 6, 2015 Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume I of the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (PRC Supplemental Response) dated November 10, 2015.

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.6

    6See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on October 28, 2015, the period of investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, for Canada and April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, for the PRC.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, December 7, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, December 17, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of iron transfer drive components to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe iron transfer drive components, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on December 7, 2015, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on December 14, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of both the Canada and the PRC less-than-fair-value investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

    10 See section 771(10) of the Act.

    11See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that iron transfer drive components constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

    12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada (Canada AD Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2014, as well as estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.13 We relied on data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.14

    13See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-4 through I-7.

    14Id. For further discussion, see Canada AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    On November 12, 2015, we received comments on industry support from Baldor Electric Company (Baldor) 15 and Caterpillar, Inc. (Caterpillar).16 Baldor also indicated that it opposes the Petitions.17 Petitioner responded to the letters from Baldor and Caterpillar on November 16, 2015.18 Baldor filed two additional submissions regarding industry support on November 16, 2015.19 Petitioner provided additional responses to Baldor's arguments on November 17, 2015.20 For further discussion of these comments, see the Canada AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    15See Letter from Baldor Electric Company, dated November 12, 2015.

    16See Letter from Caterpillar, Inc., filed on November 12, 2015. We note that this letter is dated November 11, 2015, but was received by the Department on November 12, 2015.

    17See Letter from Baldor Electric Company, dated November 12, 2015, at 15.

    18See Letter from Petitioner, dated November 16, 2015.

    19See Letters from Baldor Electric Company, dated November 16, 2015.

    20See Letter from Petitioner, dated November 17, 2015.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions; General Issues Supplement; letters from Baldor, Caterpillar, and Petitioner; and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.21 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).22 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.23 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.24 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    21See Canada AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Canada AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    23See Canada AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    24Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.25

    25Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.26

    26See General Issues Supplement, at 12-13 and Exhibit I-S3.

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by eroded domestic output and shipments; underselling and price suppression or depression; declining financial performance; negative impacts to employment; and lost sales and revenues.27 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.28

    27See Volume I of the Petitions, at 16-17, 22-44 and Exhibits I-4, I-10 through I-13, and I-15 through I-23; see also General Issues Supplement, at 12-13 and Exhibit I-S3.

    28See Canada AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China.

    Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For Canada, Petitioner based U.S. prices on price quotes to customers in the United States for iron transfer drive components produced in, and exported from, Canada.29 Where applicable, Petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.30 Petitioner also deducted from U.S. price brokerage and handling expenses.31

    29See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; see also Canada Supplemental Response at Exhibit II-S1.

    30Id.

    31Id.

    For the PRC, Petitioner based U.S. prices on purchases of iron transfer drive components produced in and exported from the PRC by two different producers and sold or offered for sale to customers in the United States. Petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.

    Normal Value

    For Canada, Petitioner provided home market price information based on price quotes for iron transfer drive components produced in and offered for sale in Canada.32 Petitioner made deductions for inland freight charges (where applicable) and local taxes from the price quotes.33

    32Id.

    33See Canada AD Initiation Checklist. Note that home market prices were not used as the basis for NV for Canada, but for calculation of net price for comparison to COP.

    Petitioner provided information that sales of iron transfer drive components in Canada were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).34 For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see below.35

    34See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    35 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for the Canada investigation, the Department will request information necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP allegation to conduct this analysis.

    With respect to the PRC, Petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every administrative proceeding in which the PRC has been involved.36 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

    36See Volume III of the Petitions, at 9.

    Petitioner claims that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration.37

    37Id. at 9.

    Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    Factors of Production

    Petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on U.S. producers consumption rates for producing iron transfer drive components as it did not have access to the consumption rates of PRC producers of the subject merchandise.38 Petitioner notes that the selected U.S. producers were chosen because the facilities are similar to and representative of facilities operated by companies manufacturing iron transfer drive components in the PRC.39 Petitioner valued the estimated factors of production using surrogate values from Thailand.40

    38See Volume III of the Petitions, at 11 and Exhibit III-13.

    39Id., at Exhibit III-13.

    40Id., at 15 and Exhibits III-15 and III-16.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    Petitioner valued the FOPs for raw materials (e.g., pig iron, carbon, acid, etc.) using reasonably available, public import data for Thailand from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period of investigation.41 Petitioner excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country. The Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

    41Id., at Exhibit III-16 and III-17.

    Valuation of Labor

    Petitioner valued labor using quarterly Thai labor data published by Thailand's National Statistics Office (NSO).42 Specifically, Petitioner relied on data pertaining to wages and benefits earned by Thai workers engaged in the manufacturing sector of the Thai economy.43

    42Id., at 16 and Exhibit III-21.

    43Id.

    Petitioner converted the wage rates to hourly and converted to U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.44

    44Id., at Exhibit III-16.

    Valuation of Packing Materials

    Petitioner valued the packing materials used by PRC producers based on Thai import data for the POI obtained from GTA.45

    45See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibits III-15 and 16.

    Valuation of Energy

    Petitioner used public information, as compiled by the Thai Board of Investment (TBI) to value electricity.46 This TBI price information was reported in U.S. Dollars/kilowatt hours and multiplied by the U.S. producer factor usage rates.47 The cost of natural gas in Thailand was calculated from the average unit value of imports of liquefied natural gas into Thailand, as reported by GTA.48

    46Id., at Exhibit III-18.

    47Id., at Exhibits III-16 and III-18.

    48Id., at 15 and Exhibit III-19.

    Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses (SG&A), and Profit

    Petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit) using the 2014 audited financial statement of Tyrolit Thai Diamond Company Limited, a Thai producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., industrial equipment including metal sawblades).49

    49Id., at Exhibits III-22 and III-23.

    Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. Petitioner calculated COM based on a U.S. producer's experience adjusted for known differences between the industry in the United States and the industry in Canada during the proposed POI.50 Using publicly available data to account for price differences, Petitioner multiplied the U.S. producer's usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture iron transfer drive components in Canada.51 Labor and energy rates were derived from publicly available sources multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.52 We made adjustments for mathematical and transcription errors that were identified in Petitioner's materials, labor, and energy cost calculations. To determine fixed overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, Petitioner relied on the financial statements of Essar Algoma Steel (Algoma), a producer of comparable merchandise (finished steel mill goods including steel coil, steel sheet, and steel plate) operating in Canada, although we made adjustments to Petitioner's calculations of these rates.53

    50See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; see also Canada Supplemental Response at Exhibit II-S8.

    51Id.

    52Id.

    53See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, Petitioner calculated NVs based on CV.54 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. Petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, and financial expenses, used to calculate COP.55 Petitioner included an amount for packing material expenses using Canadian import statistics to value the material inputs used in packing iron transfer drive components. Algoma reported a net loss on their financial statements in 2014; therefore, Petitioner did not include an amount for profit.56 We continued to apply the same adjustments to Petitioner's calculations of the factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates as we made for the calculation of COP.57

    54Id.; see also Canada Supplemental Response at Exhibit II-S10.

    55Id. at Exhibit II-S8.

    56Id.

    57See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of export price (EP) to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for iron transfer drive components for Canada ranges from 9.60 to 191.34 percent.58

    58See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.

    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for iron transfer drive components from the PRC range from 67.82 to 401.68 percent.59

    59See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.60 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.61 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.62

    60See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    61See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    62Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    Petitioner named eight companies from Canada 63 as producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components. Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, the Department would normally select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed in the scope in Appendix I, below. However, CBP data have been reported in mixed units of quantity and, thus, it is problematic for the Department use this data for respondent selection purposes. Accordingly, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    63See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.

    With respect to the PRC, Petitioner named 36 companies as producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components.64 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue Q&V questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    64Id.

    Exporters/producers of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all Canada and PRC exporters/producers no later than December 1, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.65 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.66 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

    65See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    66 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.67

    67See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Canada and the PRC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.68 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 69 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    68See section 733(a) of the Act.

    69Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 70 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.71 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    70See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    71See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.72 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 73 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    72See section 782(b) of the Act.

    73See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (i.e., blanks or castings). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are in the form of wheels or cylinders with a center bore hole that may have one or more grooves or teeth in their outer circumference that guide or mesh with a flat or ribbed belt or like device and are often referred to as sheaves, pulleys, flywheels, flat pulleys, idlers, conveyer pulleys, synchronous sheaves, and timing pulleys. The products covered by these investigations also include bushings, which are iron mechanical transfer drive components in the form of a cylinder and which fit into the bore holes of other mechanical transfer drive components to lock them into drive shafts by means of elements such as teeth, bolts, or screws.

    Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to these investigations are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.

    Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (i.e., blanks or castings) possess the approximate shape of the finished iron mechanical transfer drive component and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial casting, forging or like operations. These machining processes may include cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering.

    Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.

    Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigations regardless of width, design, or iron type (e.g., gray, white, or ductile iron). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigations regardless of whether they have non-iron attachments or parts and regardless of whether they are entered with other mechanical transfer drive components or as part of a mechanical transfer drive assembly (which typically includes one or more of the iron mechanical transfer drive components identified above, and which may also include other parts such as a belt, coupling and/or shaft). When entered as a mechanical transfer drive assembly, only the iron components that meet the physical description of covered merchandise are covered merchandise, not the other components in the mechanical transfer drive assembly (e.g., belt, coupling, shaft).

    For purposes of these investigations, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-29985 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-031] Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Trisha Tran or Robert Galantucci at (202) 482-4852 or (202) 482-2923, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The Petition

    On October 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (iron transfer drive components) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of TB Wood's Incorporated (Petitioner). The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of iron transfer drive components from the PRC and Canada.1 Petitioner is a domestic producer of iron transfer drive components.2

    1See “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China,” dated October 28, 2015 (Petition).

    2See Volume I of the Petition, at 2, and Exhibits I-3 and I-4.

    On November 3, 2015 and November 6, 2015, the Department requested information and clarification for certain areas of the Petition.3 Petitioner filed responses to these requests on November 5, 2015 and November 10, 2015.4

    3See Letter from the Department, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” dated November 3, 2015 (General Issues Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” dated November 3, 2015; see also Letter from the Department, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questionnaire,” dated November 6, 2015.

    4See Letter from Petitioner, “Response to the Department's November 3, 2015 Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume I of the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,” dated November 5, 2015, covering volume I (General Issues Supplement); see also “Response to the Department's November 3, 2015 Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume IV of the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,” dated November 5, 2015, covering volume IV of the Petition (CVD Supplement); “Response to the Department's November 6, 2015 Supplemental Questions Regarding Volume I of the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,” dated November 10, 2015, covering volume IV of the Petition (General Issues Second Supplement).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of iron transfer drive components from the PRC and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs in the PRC on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegation.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.5

    5See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of the investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is iron transfer drive components from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See General Issues Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties, and if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, which is the first business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, December 18, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook% 20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. As the GOC did not request consultations prior to the initiation of this investigation, the Department and the GOC did not hold consultations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

    10See section 771(10) of the Act.

    11See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that iron transfer drive components constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

    12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2014, as well as estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.13 We relied on data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.14

    13See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-4 through I-7.

    14Id. For further discussion, see PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    On November 12, 2015, we received comments on industry support from Baldor Electric Company (Baldor) 15 and Caterpillar, Inc. (Caterpillar).16 Baldor also indicated that it opposes the Petition.17 Petitioner responded to the letters from Baldor and Caterpillar on November 16, 2015.18 Baldor filed two additional submissions regarding industry support on November 16, 2015.19 Petitioner provided additional responses to Baldor's arguments on November 17, 2015.20 For further discussion of these comments, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    15See Letter from Baldor Electric Company, dated November 12, 2015.

    16See Letter from Caterpillar, Inc., filed on November 12, 2015. We note that this letter is dated November 11, 2015, but was received by the Department on November 12, 2015.

    17See Letter from Baldor Electric Company, dated November 12, 2015, at 15.

    18See Letter from Petitioner, dated November 16, 2015.

    19See Letters from Baldor Electric Company, dated November 16, 2015.

    20See Letter from Petitioner, dated November 17, 2015.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition; General Issues Supplement; letters from Baldor, Caterpillar, and Petitioner; and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.21 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).22 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.23 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.24 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    21See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    23See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    24Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.25

    25Id.

    Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.26

    26See General Issues Supplement, at 12-13 and Exhibit I-S3.

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by eroded domestic output and shipments; underselling and price suppression or depression; declining financial performance; negative impacts to employment; and lost sales and revenues.27 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.28

    27See Volume I of the Petition, at 16-17, 22-44 and Exhibits I-4, I-10 through I-13, and I-15 through I-23; see also General Issues Supplement, at 12-13 and Exhibit I-S3.

    28See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China.

    Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party filed a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting the allegations.

    Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components in the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of iron transfer drive components from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.29 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.30 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.31

    29See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    30See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    31Id. at 46794-95.

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 39 of the 40 alleged programs in the PRC.32 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    32 Petitioner initially alleged 39 subsidy programs. See Volume IV of the Petition, at 7-92. In response to a Department questionnaire, the final number of programs alleged increased to 40. See CVD Supplement at 9-12.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    Petitioner named 36 companies as producers/exporters of iron transfer drive components from the PRC.33 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department would normally select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of iron transfer drive components during the period of investigation under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed in the scope in Appendix I, below. However, CBP data has been reported in mixed units of quantity and, thus, it is problematic for the Department use this data for respondent selection purposes. Accordingly, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    33See General Issues Second Supplement, at Exhibit 1; see also Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I-11.

    Exporters and producers of iron transfer drive components from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no later than December 1, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the date noted above.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of iron transfer drive components from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.34 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 35 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    34See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    35See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Extension of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.36 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 37 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    36See section 782(b) of the Act.

    37See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (i.e., blanks or castings). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are in the form of wheels or cylinders with a center bore hole that may have one or more grooves or teeth in their outer circumference that guide or mesh with a flat or ribbed belt or like device and are often referred to as sheaves, pulleys, flywheels, flat pulleys, idlers, conveyer pulleys, synchronous sheaves, and timing pulleys. The products covered by this investigation also include bushings, which are iron mechanical transfer drive components in the form of a cylinder and which fit into the bore holes of other mechanical transfer drive components to lock them into drive shafts by means of elements such as teeth, bolts, or screws.

    Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to this investigation are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.

    Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (i.e., blanks or castings) possess the approximate shape of the finished iron mechanical transfer drive component and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial casting, forging or like operations. These machining processes may include cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering.

    Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.

    Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of width, design, or iron type (e.g., gray, white, or ductile iron). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether they have non-iron attachments or parts and regardless of whether they are entered with other mechanical transfer drive components or as part of a mechanical transfer drive assembly (which typically includes one or more of the iron mechanical transfer drive components identified above, and which may also include other parts such as a belt, coupling and/or shaft). When entered as a mechanical transfer drive assembly, only the iron components that meet the physical description of covered merchandise are covered merchandise, not the other components in the mechanical transfer drive assembly (e.g., belt, coupling, shaft).

    For purposes of this investigation, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-29945 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; First Request for Panel Review AGENCY:

    NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of first request for panel review.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 18, 2015, Irving Paper Limited filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Also, on November 18, 2015, additional Requests for Panel Review were filed on behalf of Resolute FP Canada Inc., Port Hawkesbury Paper LP, the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Québec. Panel Review was requested of the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative countervailing duty determination regarding Supercalendered Paper from Canada. This determination was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 63535), on October 20, 2015. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number USA-CDA-2015-1904-01 to this request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202)-482-5438.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) established a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms to the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8685) and subsequently amended on April 10, 2008 (73 FR 19458).

    A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on November 18, 2015, requesting a panel review of the determination and order described above.

    The Rules provide that:

    (a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 18, 2015);

    (b) a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is January 4, 2016); and

    (c) the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Paul Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29959 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-822] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request by Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Group), a producer/exporter of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand, and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on shrimp from Thailand with regard to Thai Union Group. Based on the information received, we preliminarily determine that Thai Union Group is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Frozen) for purposes of determining AD liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure or Elizabeth Eastwood, 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) 482-5973 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register an AD order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand.1 On September 17, 2015, Thai Union Group, a producer/exporter of Thai shrimp covered by this order, changed its name from Thai Union Frozen to Thai Union Group. On October 5, 2015, Thai Union Group requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(c), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).2 In this request, Thai Union Group asked the Department to determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen and, accordingly, to assign it the cash deposit rate of the Thai Union group of companies, of which Thai Union Frozen is a part.3 4 On October 8, 2015, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Thai Union Group, to which the company responded on October 21, 2015.5

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (February 1, 2005).

    2See Letter from Thai Union Group, Re: “Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances Review,” dated October 5, 2015 (Thai Union CCR Request).

    3Id.

    4 This group consists of Thai Union Frozen, Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd., Pakfood Public Company Limited, Okeanos Co. Ltd., Okeanos Food Co., Ltd, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd., and Takzin Samut Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Thai Union”).

    5See Letter from Thai Union Group, Re: “Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Changed Circumstances Review Supplemental Questionnaire Response,” dated October 21, 2015 (CCR Supplemental Questionnaire Response).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,6 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form.

    6 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods.

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.

    The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).

    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order.

    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain battered shrimp. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and ten percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.

    The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.7

    7 On April 26, 2011, the Department amended the antidumping duty order to include dusted shrimp, pursuant to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) decision in Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2010) and the U.S. International Trade Commission determination, which found the domestic like product to include dusted shrimp. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders in Accordance with Final Court Decision, 76 FR 23277 (April 26, 2011); see also Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2010) and Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063, 1064, 1066-1068 (Review), USITC Publication 4221, March 2011).

    Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Thai Union Group supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review.8

    8See 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    In accordance with the above-referenced regulation, the Department is initiating a CCR to determine whether Thai Union Group is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen. When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results for a CCR concurrently.9 We determined that expediting this CCR is warranted because we have the information necessary to make a preliminary finding already on the record, in accordance with our practice.10

    9See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 33480, 33480-41 (June 12, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 48807) (August 14, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Final Results).

    10See, e.g., Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 33480-41 (unchanged in Pasta From Italy Final Results, 80 FR at 48807).

    In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base.11 While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.12 Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.13

    11See, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 61702, 61703 (October 6, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Final Results)); and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6946 (February 14, 1994).

    12See Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 61703 (unchanged in Shrimp From Thailand Final Results, 75 FR at 74684).

    13Id.; see also Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58, 59 (January 2, 2002); and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688, 34689 (June 18, 2010).

    In its October 5 and October 21, 2015, submissions, Thai Union Group provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen. Thai Union Group states that the company's management, production facilities and customer/supplier relationships have not changed as a result of the corporate name change. To support its claims, Thai Union Group submitted the following documents: (1) Resolutions passed at a board of directors' meeting for the company as well as shareholder meeting minutes, demonstrating approval of the name change; 14 (2) a letter announcing the company's name change to its customers and suppliers; 15 (3) two affidavits, both dated September 2015, from the Thai Ministry of Commerce's Department of Business Development, certifying that the directors and other business information appearing in the Thai company register for Thai Union Group and Thai Union Frozen are identical; 16 (4) a list showing the management of Thai Union Frozen before, and Thai Union Group after, the name change; 17 (5) a list showing the Board of Directors of Thai Union Frozen before, and Thai Union Group after, the name change; 18 (6) Thai Union Frozen's 2014 audited financial statements; 19 (7) a list of the suppliers of Thai Union Frozen before, and Thai Union Group after, the name change; 20 and (8) a list of the customers of Thai Union Frozen before, and Thai Union Group after, the name change.21

    14See Thai Union CCR Request, at Exhibit 1.

    15Id., at Exhibit 2.

    16Id., at Exhibit 5; and CCR Supplemental Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 2.

    17See Thai Union CCR Request, at Exhibit 3.

    18Id., at Exhibits 4 and 5.

    19See CCR Supplemental Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 3.

    20See Thai Union CCR Request, at Exhibit 7.

    21Id.

    Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily find that Thai Union Group is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen. We find that Thai Union Group operates as the same business entity as Thai Union Frozen and that its Board of Directors, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed as a result of its name change. Thus, we preliminarily find that Thai Union Group should receive the same antidumping duty cash-deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as Thai Union Frozen, its predecessor company.22

    22 Thai Union Frozen received a 1.10 percent dumping margin as part of Thai Union in the 2012-2013 administrative review of the AD order on shrimp from Thailand. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission of Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 51306 (August 28, 2014) (corrected by Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Notice of Correction to the Final Results of the 2012-2013 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 62099 (October 16, 2014)). We note that Thai Union Frozen is also a respondent in the current 2014-2015 administrative review of this antidumping duty order. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 16634 (March 30, 2015). At the conclusion of this CCR, if we determine that Thai Union Group is the successor-in-interest to Thai Union Frozen, we will assign Thai Union Group an updated cash deposit rate based on the final results of that review.

    Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by Thai Union Group at Thai Union Frozen's cash deposit rate, effective on the publication date of our final results.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.23 Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.24 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed circumstance review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to comment on the preliminary results must file briefs electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document is due.

    23See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).

    24See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Interested parties that wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 14 days of publication of this notice.25 Parties will be notified of the time and date of any hearing, if requested.26

    25See 19 CFR 351.310(c); see also 19 CFR 351.303 for general filing requirements.

    26See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstance review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

    We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29984 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests and Comments from the Public Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States—Korea Free Trade Agreement AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel. (202) 482-1550, Maria.D'[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The United States and Korea negotiated the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”) which was implemented into U.S. law pursuant to the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“the Act”). Under the provisions of the Act, textile and apparel goods must contain fibers, yarns, and fabrics produced in Korea or the United States to receive duty-free tariff treatment. The Agreement also provides for the establishment of a list of specific fibers, yarns, and fabrics that are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in the United States. Articles containing these commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics are also entitled to duty-free or preferential duty treatment despite not being produced in the United States.

    The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision of the Agreement and the Act. Under Section 202(o) of the Act (“the commercial availability provision”), interested entities from Korea or the United States have the right to request that a specific fiber, yarn, or fabric be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics. This right becomes effective when the Agreement enters into force.

    Section 202(o)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the President establish procedures for parties to follow when exercising the right to make these requests. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”).

    The intent of these procedures is to foster the trade in U.S. and Korean textile and apparel articles by allowing non-originating fibers, yarns, and fabrics to be placed on or removed from a list of items not available in commercial quantities, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. To this end, these procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission, on a timely basis, of requests for commercial availability determinations and offers to supply the products that are the subject of the requests; have the market indicate the availability of the supply of the subject products; make available promptly, to interested entities and parties, information received regarding the requests for products and offers to supply; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; provide careful scrutiny of information provided to substantiate order requests and responses of offers to supply; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.

    For a fiber, yarn or fabric to be added to Appendix 4-B-1, an interested entity must submit to CITA a Request for a Commercial Availability Determination (“Request”) which states that the subject product is not commercially available in the United States within a commercially reasonable timeframe (i.e., timely). In support of its claim, the requestor must provide information to CITA regarding its attempts to source the subject product in the United States, and why it determined that the product is not available in a timely manner. Potential suppliers from the United States may submit a Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”), asserting their capability and capacity to supply the subject product. These Responses must include information supporting the capability and capacity assertion. If the requestor disputes a responder's assertions, the requestor may submit a Rebuttal comment offering its contention, along with supporting information and documentation.

    The information collected by CITA from Requests, Responses and Rebuttals will be used to determine whether the subject product is available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States under the commercial availability provision of the Act. Requests, Responses, and Rebuttals must identify confidential information. Entities submitting confidential information in their Requests, Responses, or Rebuttals to CITA must submit both a public and a confidential version of their submissions. If the submissions are accepted, the public submissions or public versions of submissions will be posted on the dedicated commercial availability section of the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA)'s Web site. Business confidential information will not be shared with the public. Requestors and potential suppliers of the product named in the Request may use the public version as a basis for Responses and Rebuttals.

    Each submission containing factual information for CITA's consideration must be accompanied by the appropriate certification regarding the accuracy of the factual information. With each electronic and original signed submission that contains factual information, an interested entity must file a certification of due diligence, attesting to the accuracy and authenticity of the submission. If the interested entity has legal counsel or other representative, the legal counsel or other representative must also file a certification of due diligence with each electronic and original signed submissions that contains factual information. Accurate representations of material facts submitted to CITA for the Commercial Availability Proceeding are vital to the integrity of this process and are necessary for CITA's effective administration of the statutory scheme. Each submission containing factual information for CITA's consideration must be accompanied by the appropriate certification regarding the accuracy of the factual information. Any submission that lacks the applicable certifications will be considered an incomplete submission that CITA will reject and return to the submitter. CITA may verify any factual information submitted by interested entities in a Commercial Availability Proceeding.

    II. Method of Collection

    All submissions for a commercial availability proceeding pursuant to these procedures (e.g., Commercial Availability Request, Response, Rebuttal, and Request to Remove) must be in English. If any attachments are in a language other than English, a complete translation must be provided. Each submission must be submitted to the Chairman of CITA, in care of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) in two forms: email and an original signed submission. An email version of the submission must be either in PDF or Word format, must contain an adequate public summary of any business confidential information and the due diligence certification, and should be sent to [email protected] The email version of the submission will be posted for public review on KOREA FTA Commercial Availability Web site. No business confidential information should be submitted in the email version of any document.

    Brackets must be placed around all business confidential information contained in submissions. Documents containing business confidential information must have a bolded heading stating “Confidential Version.” Attachments considered business confidential information must have a heading stating “Business Confidential Information.” Documents, including those submitted via email, provided for public release must have a bolded heading stating “Public Version” and all the business confidential information must be deleted from public versions, and substituted with an adequate public summary.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0270.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Business.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 16.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours for Request for Commercial Availability Determination; 2 hours for Response to a Request; and 1 hour for Rebuttal.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 89.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $3,440.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29933 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-BC69 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Elliot Bay Seawall Project in Seattle, Washington AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the City of Seattle's Department of Transportation (SDOT) for the take of eight species of marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities associated with the Elliot Bay Seawall Project (EBSP).

    DATES:

    Effective from October 22, 2015, through August 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The LOA and supporting documentation are available for review on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours at the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, by telephoning the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Zach Hughes, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issues or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the identified species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth in the regulations. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Regulations governing the taking of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli dalli), southern resident and transient killer whales (Orcinus orca), gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), by harassment, incidental to pile driving activities in Elliot Bay for the EBSP, were issued on October 21, 2013 (78 FR 63396, October 24, 2013), and remain in effect until October 21, 2018. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. The regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during pile driving activities associated with the EBSP. Pursuant to those regulations, NMFS first issued an LOA, effective from October 22, 2013, through October 21, 2014, and a second LOA, effective from October 22, 2014, through October 21, 2015. SDOT conducted activities as described, implemented the required mitigation methods, and conducted the required monitoring.

    Monitoring Reports

    The total number of potentially harassed marine mammals was well below the authorized limits, with the exception of the California sea lion. The reported take for California sea lion for the 2014-2015 Letter of Authorization, by Level B harassment only, exceeded the annually authorized level. Please see the monitoring report at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm for more detail. This resulted in part because of an error in our assumptions relating to the proposed take estimates in the original rule, i.e., the number of California sea lions regularly hauling out on buoys in Elliot Bay. Based on our review of monitoring to date we plan to revise future take estimates by assuming an estimated daily exposure of up to 7 California sea lions (as compared with 5 assumed in regulations).

    Because this revision of the estimated number of California sea lions constitutes less than 0.1 percent of the population for California sea lions, and is the same kind of take anticipated in the regulations, it remains consistent with the determinations of negligible impact and small numbers, and our subsistence findings for the specified activity and remaining years of the issued regulations for the EBSP.

    Authorization

    NMFS has issued an LOA to SDOT authorizing the Level B harassment of marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities associated with the EBSP at Seattle, WA. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) Limited impact pile driving; (2) containment of impact pile driving; (3) additional sound attenuation measures; (4) ramp-up of pile-related activities; (5) marine mammal exclusion zones; and (6) shutdown and delay procedures. SDOT will also conduct visual monitoring and underwater acoustic monitoring for mitigation and research purposes. Reports will be submitted to NMFS at the time of request for a renewal of the LOA, and a final comprehensive report, which will summarize all previous reports and assess cumulative impacts, will be submitted before the rule expires.

    Issuance of this LOA is based on the results of the monitoring reports that verified that the total number of potentially harassed marine mammals was below the authorized limits, with the exception of the California sea lion (as discussed above). Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under the LOA will have a negligible impact on the marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. No injury, serious injury, or mortality of the affected species is anticipated.

    Dated: October 28, 2015. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29979 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Numbers 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088, Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of three collections of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on the collections of information mandated by §§ 23.500 to 23.505 of the Commission regulations (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants”,” and Collection Numbers 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088 by any of the following methods:

    The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Portal. Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Scopino, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (OMB Control Nos. 3038-0068, 3038-0083, 3038-0088). This is a request for an extension of currently approved information collections.

    Abstract: On September 11, 2012 the Commission adopted Commission regulations 23.500-23.505 (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants) 1 under sections 4s(f), (g) and (i) 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Commission regulations 23.500-23.505 require, among other things, that swap dealers (“SD”) 3 and major swap participants (“MSP”) 4 develop and retain written swap trading relationship documentation. The regulations also establish requirements for SDs and MSPs regarding swap confirmation, portfolio reconciliation, and portfolio compression. Under the regulations, swap dealers and major swap participants are obligated to maintain records of the policies and procedures required by the rules.5 Confirmation, portfolio reconciliation, and portfolio compression are important post-trade processing mechanisms for reducing risk and improving operational efficiency. The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to ensure that each swap dealer and major swap participant maintains the required records of their business activities and an audit trail sufficient to conduct comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction. The information collections contained in the regulations are essential to ensuring that swap dealers and major swap participants document their swaps, reconcile their swap portfolios to resolve discrepancies and disputes, and wholly or partially terminate some or all of their outstanding swaps through regular portfolio compression exercises. The collections of information are mandatory. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    1 17 CFR 23.500-23.505.

    2 7 U.S.C. 6s(f),(g) & (i).

    3 For the definition of SD, see section 1a(49) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(ggg). 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and 17 CFR 1.3(ggg).

    4 For the definitions of MSP, see section 1a(33) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(hhh). 7 U.S.C. 1a(33) and 17 CFR 1.3(hhh).

    5 SDs and MSPs are required to maintain all records of policies and procedures in accordance with Commission regulation 1.31, including policies, procedures and models used for eligible master netting agreements and custody agreements that prohibit custodian of margin from re-hypothecating, repledging, reusing, or otherwise transferring the funds held by the custodian.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.6

    6 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the information collection request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of respondents and estimated burden hours. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0068 (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, and Portfolio Compression Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    Number of Registrants: 106.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 1,282.5.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 135,945.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0083 (Orderly Liquidation Termination Provision in Swap Trading Relationship Documentation for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    Number of Registrants: 106.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 270.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 28,620.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0088 (Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    Number of Registrants: 106.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 6284.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 135,945.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: November 20, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30048 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0078, Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on the collections of information mandated by Commission regulation 1.71 (Conflicts of interest policies and procedures by futures commission merchants and introducing brokers).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers,” and Collection Number 3038-0078 by any of the following methods:

    The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA,1 Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    1 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Title: Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers (OMB Control No. 3038-0078). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: On April 3, 2012, the Commission adopted Commission regulation 1.71 (Conflicts of interest policies and procedures by futures commission merchants and introducing brokers)2 pursuant to section 4d(c)3 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Commission regulation 1.71 requires generally that, among other things, futures commission merchants (“FCM”)4 and introducing brokers (“IB”)5 develop conflicts of interest procedures and disclosures, adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with their conflicts of interest and disclosure obligations, and maintain specified records related to those requirements.6 The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulation 1.71 are essential (i) to ensuring that FCMs and IBs develop and maintain the conflicts of interest systems, procedures and disclosures required by the CEA, and Commission regulations, and (ii) to the effective evaluation of these registrants' actual compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    2 17 CFR 1.71.

    3 7 U.S.C. 6d(c).

    4 For the definition of FCM, see section 1a(28) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(p). 7 U.S.C. 1a(28) and 17 CFR 1.3(p).

    5 For the definition of IB, see section 1a(31) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(mm). 7 U.S.C. 1a(31) and 17 CFR 1.3(mm).

    6See 17 CFR 1.71.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.7

    7 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the information collection request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of registered FCMs and IBs. Accordingly, the respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

    Number of Registrants: 1,381.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 44.5.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 61,454.5.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    (Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30047 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2015-0053] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z).”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before December 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z).

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0023.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Private Sector (Businesses and other for- and non-profit institutions).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 55.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12.

    Abstract: The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., was enacted to foster comparison credit shopping and informed credit decision making by requiring accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of credit to consumers. Creditors are subject to disclosure and other requirements that apply to open-end credit (e.g., revolving credit or credit lines) and closed-end credit (e.g., installment financing). TILA imposes disclosure requirements on all types of creditors in connection with consumer credit, including mortgage companies, finance companies, retailers, and credit card issuers, to ensure that consumers are fully apprised of the terms of financing prior to consummation of the transaction and, in some instances, during the loan term. It also imposes advertising disclosure requirements on advertisers of consumer credit. TILA also establishes billing error resolution procedures for open-end credit and limits consumer liability for the unauthorized use of credit cards.

    An amendment to TILA, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), imposes, among other things, various disclosure and other requirements on certain creditors offering high-cost mortgages to consumers. The Bureau promulgated its Regulation Z to implement TILA, as required by the statute. The Bureau enforces TILA as to certain creditors and advertisers. TILA also contains a private right of action for consumers and provides enhanced remedies to consumers in high-cost mortgages for violations of HOEPA.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on September 14, 2015 (80 FR 55100). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30042 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2015-0049] 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 titled, “Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) 12 CFR 1002.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before January 25, 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: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) 12 CFR 1002.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0013.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Private sector.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 514,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,450,250.

    Abstract: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) was enacted to ensure that credit is made available to all creditworthy applicants without discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or other prohibited bases under the ECOA. The ECOA allows for creditors to collect information for self-testing against these criteria, while not allowing creditors to use this information in making credit decisions of applicants. For certain mortgage applications, the ECOA requires creditors to ask for some of the prohibited information for monitoring purposes. In addition, for certain mortgage applications, creditors are required to send a copy of any appraisal or written valuation used in the application process to the applicant in a timely fashion.

    The ECOA also prescribes creditors to inform applicants of decisions made on credit applications. In particular, where creditors make adverse actions on credit applications or existing accounts, creditors must inform consumers as to why the adverse action was taken, such that credit applicants can challenge errors on their accounts or learn how to become more creditworthy. Creditors must retain all application information for 25 months, including notices sent and any information related to adverse actions.

    Finally, the ECOA requires creditors who furnish applicant information to a consumer credit bureau to reflect participation of the applicant's spouse, if the spouse if permitted to use or contractually liable on the account.

    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 17, 2015. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29910 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0058] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information relating to testing and recordkeeping requirements in the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR part 1205), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0091. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0058, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2012-0058, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers.

    OMB Number: 3041-0091.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of walk-behind power lawn mowers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25 manufacturers and importers of walk-behind power lawn mowers have been identified.

    Estimated Time per Response: Walk-behind power lawn mowers are manufactured seasonally to meet demand. They are manufactured during an estimated 130 days out of the year. When they are manufactured, firms are required to test and maintain records of those tests. Three hours daily is estimated for testing and recordkeeping per firm totaling 390 hours per firm (3 hours x 130 days). In addition, to produce labels and apply labels on the newly manufactured lawn mowers, one hour daily is estimated for each firm during the production cycle for a total of 130 hours per firm (1 hour x 130 days).

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 9,750 hours on testing and recordkeeping (25 firms x 390 hours) and 3,250 hours for labeling (25 firms x 130 hours) for a total annual burden of 13,000 hours per year.

    General Description of Collection: In 1979, the Commission issued the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR part 1205) to address blade contact injuries. Subpart B of the standard sets forth regulations prescribing requirements for a reasonable testing program to support certificates of compliance with the standard for walk-behind power lawn mowers. 16 CFR part 1205, subpart B.

    In addition, section 14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate stating that the product complies with all applicable consumer product safety standards. Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires that the certificate of compliance must be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program. The information collection is necessary because these regulations require manufacturers and importers to establish and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for testing and labeling to support the certification of compliance.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: November 20, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29978 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0056] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Commission's Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas (16 CFR part 1204), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0006. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0056, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2012-0056, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas.

    OMB Number: 3041-0006.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: We have identified five firms that supply omnidirectional citizen band base station antennas.

    Estimated Time per Response: Based on the information compiled by manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of antennas to test and maintain records for certificates of compliance, we estimate an average of 220 hours per firm for annual testing and recordkeeping.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,100 hours (5 firms × 220 hours).

    General Description of Collection: The Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas (16 CFR part 1204) establishes performance requirements for omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas to reduce unreasonable risks of death and injury that may result if an antenna contacts overhead power lines while being erected or removed from its site. The regulations implementing the standard (16 CFR part 1204, subpart B) require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of antennas subject to the standard to test the antennas for compliance with the standard and to maintain records of that testing.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: November 20, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29976 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0055] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Flammability Standards for Children's Sleepwear AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 Through 6X (16 CFR part 1615); and the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 Through 14 (16 CFR part 1616), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0027. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0055, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2012-0055, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 Through 6X; and the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 Through 14.

    OMB Number: 3041-0027.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Based on a review of past firm inspections, and published industry information, approximately 50 large domestic companies manufacture most of the children's sleepwear produced in the United States. In addition, there may be up to 1,000 small domestic producers of children's sleepwear. Accordingly, there may be as many as 1,050 firms that manufacture children's sleepwear in the United States. There are also approximately 4,500 importers (which may include some of the domestic manufacturers) that supply children's sleepwear to the United States market.

    Estimated Time per Response: The 50 large domestic manufacturers and the 100 largest importers may each introduce an average of 100 new children's sleepwear items annually. Testing and recordkeeping of each item is approximately 3 hours. The annual burden for the 50 large domestic manufacturers and the 100 largest importers is estimated at 45,000 hours for testing and recordkeeping (150 firms × 100 items × 3 hours). The remaining 1,000 manufacturers and 4,400 importers have on the average 10 new children's sleepwear items annually, for a testing and recordkeeping burden of 162,000 hours (5,400 firms × 10 items × 3 hours.)

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: The total estimated potential annual burden imposed by the flammability standards on all manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear is approximately 207,000 hours (45,000 hours + 162,000 hours).

    Description of Collection: The Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 through 6X (16 CFR part 1615) and the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 through 14 (16 CFR part 1616) address the fire hazard associated with small-flame ignition sources for children's sleepwear manufactured for sale in or imported into the United States. The standards also require manufacturers and importers of children's sleepwear to collect information resulting from product testing, and maintenance of the testing records. 16 CFR part 1615, subpart B; 16 CFR part 1616; subpart B.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: November 20, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29975 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0057] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys and Children's Articles AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information required in the Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys or Other Electrically Operated Articles Intended for Use by Children (16 CFR part 1505), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0035. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0057, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2012-0057, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys.

    OMB Number: 3041-0035.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Manufacturers and importers of electrically operated toys and other electrically operated articles.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40 firms that manufacture or import electrically operated toys and other electrically operated articles have been identified; based on manufacturer and importer records for sales and distribution of inventory, there are approximately 10 models each year per firm for which testing and recordkeeping is required resulting in 400 records (40 firms x 10 models) per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: Based on discussion with a trade association for the toy industry, we estimate that the tests required by the regulations can be performed on one model in 16 hours and that four hours of recordkeeping is required per model. In addition, each firm may spend 30 minutes or less per model on labeling requirements.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 6400 hours for testing burden (16 hours x 400 records); 1600 hours for recordkeeping (4 hours x 400 records); 200 hours for labeling (40 firms x 1/2 hour x 10 models) for a total annual burden of 8200 hours per year.

    General Description of Collection: The regulations in 16 CFR part 1505 establish performance and labeling requirements for electrically operated toys and children's articles to reduce unreasonable risks of injury to children from electric shock, electrical burns, and thermal burns associated with those products. Manufacturers and importers of electrically operated toys and children's articles are required to maintain records for three years on: (1) Material and production specifications; (2) the quality assurance program used; (3) results of all tests and inspections conducted; and (4) sales and distribution of electrically operated toys and children's articles.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: November 20, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29977 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, December 11, 2015. The Public Session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, VA 22203. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 693-3849. Web site: http://jpp.whs.mil.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In Section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will continue deliberations on issues relating to retaliation against individuals who report incidents of sexual assault within the military and deliberations on the draft report on restitution and compensation for victims of sexual assault in the military. The Panel will receive a presentation by the JPP Subcommittee on its analysis, conclusions and recommendations regarding Article 120 of the UCMJ, followed by a discussion with members of the JPP Subcommittee on the issues and recommendations presented. The Panel is interested in written and oral comments from the public, including non-governmental organizations, relevant to these issues or any of the Panel's tasks.

    Agenda 9:00—10:00 Deliberations: Retaliation Against Victims of Sexual Assault Crimes (Public meeting begins) 10:00—10:45 Deliberations: Review of the Restitution and Compensation Draft Report 10:45—11:00 Break 11:00—12:00 JPP Subcommittee Presentation: Overview of Art. 120 Analysis, Conclusions, and Recommendations 12:00—1:00 Lunch 1:00—3:00 JPP Members Discussion with JPP Subcommittee Members to Review Art. 120 Recommendations on Issues 1 through 11 (Terms and Definitions in Art. 120) 3:00-4:30 JPP Members Discussion with JPP Subcommittee Members to Review Art. 120 Recommendations on Issues 12 through 17 (Coercive and Abuse of Authority Sexual Offenses) 4:30—4:45 Public Comment

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the December 11, 2015 public meeting agenda or any updates or changes to the agenda, to include individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the JPP at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement must be submitted along with a request to provide an oral statement. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. on December 11, 2015 in front of the Panel members. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public on a first-come basis. After reviewing the requests for oral presentation, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer will, if they determine the statement to be relevant to the Panel's mission, allot five minutes to persons desiring to make an oral presentation.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer: The Panel's Designated Federal Officer is Ms. Maria Fried, Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29983 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-HA-0132] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Health Agency, TRICARE Policy and Benefits Office, 16401 E. Centretech Parkway, Aurora Co, 80011-9066, ATTN: Mr. Doug McBroom, or call 303-676-3533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DD Form 2876, TRICARE Prime Enrollment, Disenrollment, and Primary Care Manager (PCM) Change Form, OMB No. 0720-0008.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain the TRICARE beneficiary's personal information needed to: (1) Complete his/her enrollment into TRICARE Prime health plan, (2) change the beneficiary's enrollment (new Primary Care Manager, enrolled region, add/drop a dependent, etc.), or (3) dis-enroll the beneficiary. All TRICARE beneficiaries have the option of enrolling, changing their enrollment or dis-enrolling using the DD Form 2876, the Beneficiary Web Enrollment (BWE) portal, or by calling their regional Managed Care Support Contractor (MCSC). Although the telephonic enrollment/change is the preferred method by the large majority of beneficiaries, many beneficiaries prefer using the form to document their enrollment date and preferences.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 74,017.

    Number of Respondents: 148,033.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are TRICARE beneficiaries choosing to enroll in TRICARE Prime for the first time, change their current enrollment, or dis-enroll using the DD Form 2876, instead of using the BWE web portal or calling their Managed Care Support Contractor. The completed form is used by the TRICARE Managed Care Support Contractors to formally update the enrollment, enrollment change or dis-enrollment. The beneficiary is notified via email or postcard, which refers them to the MilConnect Web site to confirm the enrollment/change. A beneficiary can also call their Managed Care Support Contractor to confirm the change.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29997 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-69] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-69 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD <E T="04">Federal Register</E> Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN25NO15.001 Transmittal No. 15-69 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: The Government of France

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $ 25 million Other $ 5 million TOTAL $ 30 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services Under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Two-hundred (200) AGM-114K1A Hellfire Missiles Non-MDE items included in this request are: Hellfire Missile conversion kits; blast fragmentation sleeves and installation kits; containers; and transportation.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (FR-B-WAA, Amendment 8)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FR-B-WAA-$42.2M-09 JAN 08

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 03 NOV 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION The Government of France—Hellfire Missiles

    The Government of France has requested a possible sale of two-hundred (200) AGM-114K1A Hellfire Missiles; Hellfire Missile conversion kits; blast fragmentation sleeves and installation kits; containers; and transportation. The estimated cost of MDE is $25 million. The total estimated cost is $30 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the capability of a NATO ally. France is a major political and economic power in Europe and a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability around the world. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist France to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.

    The additional missiles will meet France's operational requirements for a precision guided tactical missile for its Tigre Attack Helicopter. The purchase will directly support French forces actively engaged in operations in Mali and Northern Africa, providing them the capability to successfully engage targets with minimal collateral damage. France will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    There is no principal contractor for this sale as the missiles are coming from U.S. Army stock. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in France.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-69 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. AGM-114K1A: The highest level for release of the K1A semi active laser is SECRET, based upon the software. Software documentation (e.g., Data Processing, Software Requirements, Algorithms) are not authorized for disclosure. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is up to and including SECRET. The highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is up to and including SECRET. Reverse engineering could reveal SECRET information. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL. Detailed information to include discussions, reports and studies of system capabilities, vulnerabilities and limitations that leads to conclusions on specific tactics or other counter countermeasures (CCM) are not authorized for disclosure.

    2. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    [FR Doc. 2015-30046 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 0O-15] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,Transmittal 0O-15 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN25NO15.002 Transmittal No. 0O-15 Report of Enhancement or Upgrade of Sensitivity of Technology or Capability (Sec. 36(B)(5)(C), AECA)

    (i) Purchaser: Government of the Kingdom of Morocco.

    (ii) Sec. 36(b)(l), AECA Transmittal No.: 12-28.

    Date: 18 June 2012.

    Military Department: Army.

    (iii) Description: On 18 Jun 2012, Congress was notified by Congressional certification transmittal number 12-28, of the enhancement and refurbishment of 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks, provided as part of a grant Excess Defense Article (EDA) transfer notified to Congress on 27 April 2011, to the M1A1 Situational Awareness (SA) configuration. The proposed sale also includes 150 AN/VRC-87E and 50 AN/VRC-89E Exportable Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS), 200 M2 Chrysler Mount Machine Guns, 400 7.62MM M240 Machine Guns, 12,049,842 Ammunition Rounds (including 1400 C785 SABOT, 1800 CA31 HEAT, and 5400 AA38 SLAP-T), 200 M250 Smoke Grenade Launchers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, communication support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related logistics support. The estimated Major Defense Equipment (MDE) was $104.4 million, with a total estimated cost of $1.015 billion.

    This transmittal reports that 28 fewer of the EDA M1A1 tanks will be refurbished than were reported in the previous transmittal. It also reports the potential sale of 50 M1A1 tanks from Long Supply. These 50 tanks from Long Supply will be enhanced and refurbished to the M1Al SA configuration. The proposed sale also includes 50 AGT 1500 engines (variant of the SLE and TIGER), electronic communication support systems consisting of an additional 22 each Export Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS), 22 each M2 Chrysler Mount Machine Guns, 44 each 7.62MM M240 Machine Guns, and Ammunition consisting of 820 M865 SABOT Rounds, 2,640 M831Al Rounds, 133,200 .50 caliber Rounds, 366,400 7.62MM Rounds and other various types of ammunition to support the M1A1 Tanks. This report also includes Support Equipment, Government-Furnished Equipment, Repair Parts, Communication Support Equipment, Tool and Test Equipment, Training, U.S. Government Technical Support and Logistical Support, Contractor Technical Support. These additions will result in an increase in MDE of $117.5 million, for a total estimated MDE value of $221.9 million, and the total overall value will remain $1.015 billion.

    (iv) Significance: This notification is being provided for the additional 50 M1A1 Abrams tanks from Long Supply, with their associated equipment, that were not enumerated as Major Defense Equipment in the original notification. Their inclusion represents an increase in capability over what was previously notified. This equipment provides the Kingdom of Morocco Army the ability to modernize its tank fleet, enhancing its ability to meet current and future threats. These tanks will contribute to Morocco's goal of updating its military capability while further enhancing interoperability with the U.S. and other allies.

    (v) Justification: This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Africa. This package of M1A1 tank enhancements will contribute to the modernization of Morocco's tank fleet, enhancing its ability to meet current and future threats. These tanks will contribute to Morocco's goal of updating its military capability while further enhancing interoperability with the U.S. and other allies.

    (vi) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 03 NOV 2015

    [FR Doc. 2015-30052 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-59] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-59 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN25NO15.000 Transmittal No. 15-59 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Italy

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 18.3 million Other $ 111.3 million TOTAL $ 129.6 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) included:

    One hundred and fifty-six (156) AGM-114R2 HELLFIRE II Missiles Eight (8) HELLFIRE II, M36-E8 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs) Thirty (30) GBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs One hundred and twenty (120) FMU-152A/B Joint Programmable Fuzes

    Also included with this request are the following non-MDE items: thirty (30) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs); five (5) Hellfire M34 Dummy Missiles; thirty (30) GBU-49 Enhanced Laser Guided Bombs; thirty (30) GBU-54 Laser JDAMS; twenty-six (26) BRU-71A Bomb Racks; thirteen (13) M-299 launchers; six (6) MQ-9 weaponization kits and installation; and two (2) AN/AWM-103 test suites. Additionally, this transmittal includes personnel weapons training/equipment; spare parts; support equipment; publications and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related elements of program and logistics support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (QAV)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case IT-D-SAG-$182M-02 Dec 08

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 03 NOV 2015

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Italy—Weaponization of MQ-9s

    The Government of Italy requested a possible sale of Major Defense Equipment (MDE) items including one hundred and fifty-six (156) AGM-114R2 HELLFIRE II Missiles; eight (8) HELLFIRE II, M36-E8 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); and thirty (30) GBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs. Non-MDE items requested include thirty (30) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs); five (5) HELLFIRE M34 Dummy Missiles; thirty (30) GBU-49 Enhanced Laser Guided Bombs; thirty (30) GBU-54 Laser JDAMs; twenty-six (26) Bomb Racks; six (6) MQ-9 weaponization kits and installation; thirteen (13) M-299 launchers; two (2) AN/AWM-103 test suites; personnel weapons training/equipment; spare parts; support equipment; publications and technical data; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated MDE value is $18 million. The estimated total value is $129.6 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the capability of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally that has been an integral member of every recent NATO and U.S.-led operation. It is in the U.S. strategic interest to support Italy's security contributions as a capable and interoperable ally. Italy is a major political and economic power in NATO and a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability around the world.

    Italy requests to arm its MQ-9 Reapers for three primary reasons: 1) to support and enhance burden sharing in NATO and coalition operations; 2) to increase operational flexibility; and 3) to increase the survivability of Italian deployed forces. Italy currently operates the MQ-9 system and will have no difficulty incorporating this added capability into its Air Force.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be the General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. of San Diego, California. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Italy.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. All defense articles/services have been approved for release by our foreign disclosure office.

    Transmittal No. 15-59 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. Armed MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System Upgrade: Italy currently owns and operates an unarmed version of the MQ-9 system and has formally requested an armed capability.

    No new Critical Program Information or Technology is involved in the weaponization process. The equipment proposed in this weaponization process for the Italian MQ-9 includes:

    • BRU-7A Bomb Racks, M-299 launchers, MQ-9 weaponization kits to include pylons, AN/AWM-103 test suites, and associated operational flight programming (OFP).

    2. AGM-114R2 HELLFIRE II Semi-Active Laser Missile: The AGM-114R2 HELLFIRE II is a rail-launched guided missile. The guidance system employs a Semi-Active Laser (SAL) seeker and an analogue autopilot. SAL missiles home on the laser energy reflected off a target that has been illuminated by a laser designator. The laser can be on either the launch platform or another platform that can be separated by several kilometers. The AGM-114R2 has a multi-purpose selectable warhead and inertial measurement unit (IMU)-Aided Trajectories. The highest level of classified information to be disclosed regarding the AGM-114R2 HELLFIRE II missile is SECRET, based upon the software. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is SECRET; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is CONFIDENTIAL. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified up to SECRET.

    3. The HELLFIRE II Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) consists of a functional guidance section coupled to an inert missile bus. The CATM is used for flight training and cannot be launched. The missile has an operational semi-active laser seeker that can search for and lock-on to laser-designated targets. The CATM functions like a tactical missile (without launch capability) during captive carry on the aircraft, making it suitable for training the aircrew in simulated HELLFIRE missile target acquisition and lock.

    4. GBU-12 (500 lb): The GBU-12 is a general purpose bomb fitted with the MXU-650 airfoil and the MAU-169 L/B Computer Control Group (CCG) to convert them to Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs). The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose (GP) warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. The hardware is Unclassified.

    Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    5. GBU-38 (500 lb) JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition): The GBU-38 is a general purpose bomb with an FMU-152A/B fuse and a KMU-572 B/B guidance tail kit that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, all weather, GPS guided “smart” munitions.

    Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.

    Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    6. GBU-49 (500 lb): The GBU-49 is a 500 lb (MK-82 or BLU-111) Enhanced Paveway II, dual mode GPS/laser guided bomb with an airfoil group and the MAU-169L/B CCG. The laser sensor enhances standard GPS guidance by allowing rapid prosecution of moving targets or fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE).

    Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.

    Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    7. GBU-54 (500 lb): This is the dual-mode laser JDAM variant of the GBU-38 JDAM. The nose fuze is replaced with the DSU-38, which gives the weapon both GPS and laser guidance capability. The laser sensor enhances standard JDAM's reactive target capability by allowing rapid prosecution of fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE). The addition of the laser sensor combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware turns a standard JDAM into a Laser JDAM.

    Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.

    Information revealing the probability of destroying common/unspecified targets, the number of simultaneous lasers the laser seeker head can discriminate, and data on the radar/infra-red frequency is classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    8. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    9. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    10. Release of this technology has been approved via appropriate technology transfer and foreign disclosure processes.

    [FR Doc. 2015-30025 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-9-000] Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for and Requesting Comments on the Proposed Atlantic Bridge Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Atlantic Bridge Project (Project), which would involve construction and operation of facilities by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC (Maritimes), collectively referred to as the Applicants, in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    A Notice of Intent (NOI) for this Project was issued by the FERC on April 27, 2015. Since that time, some additional stakeholders not previously identified have been added to the environmental mailing list. In addition, the Applicants are proposing to use additional available horsepower at a compressor station in New York that was not previously included during the pre-filing process. As a result, this notice announces a supplemental scoping period to gather input from the public and agencies on the Project.

    You can make a difference by providing us 1 with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before December 21, 2015; however, this will not be the last public input opportunity for the Project. Please refer to the Review Process flow chart in Appendix 1.2

    1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission under Docket No. PF15-12-000, prior to the opening of the CP docket on October 22, 2015, you do not need to refile your comments under Docket No. CP16-9-000. We have received your comments and will use the information in the preparation of the EA.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement and the Project is approved, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (CP16-9) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instruction so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Applicants plan to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain the proposed Atlantic Bridge Project, which (as described more fully below) would involve expansion of its existing pipeline and compressor station facilities located in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

    The proposed Atlantic Bridge Project, which was reduced in scope after the issuance of the first NOI, includes replacing about 6.3 miles of existing 26-inch-diameter mainline pipeline with 42-inch-diameter pipeline. About 4.0 miles of the pipeline replacement would be in Westchester County, New York (Stony Point Discharge L&R). The remaining 2.3 miles of pipeline replacement would be in Fairfield County, Connecticut (Southeast Discharge L&R).

    In addition to the pipeline facilities, the Applicants plan to modify/uprate three existing compressor stations, construct one new compressor station, modify five existing metering and regulating (M&R) stations and one regulator station, and construct one new M&R station to replace an existing station. The modifications and uprating to the existing compressor stations would occur in Rockland County, New York and New Haven and Windham Counties, Connecticut, and would add a total additional 18,800 horsepower to the Applicants' pipeline system. The new compressor station would be located in Norfolk County, Massachusetts and would include a new 7,700 horsepower gas-fired compressor unit. The modifications to the five existing Algonquin M&R stations and one regulator station would occur in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine to accept the new gas flows associated with the Project. The new M&R station to replace an existing station would be constructed in New London County, Connecticut. The Applicants would also need to construct a number of pig3 launcher and receiver facilities and four new mainline valves.

    3 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushed through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    The proposed Atlantic Bridge Project has been modified since the issuance of the NOI to include uprating of existing horsepower at the Stony Point Compressor Station in Rockland County, New York. The proposed uprate would involve the removal of a software control and would not require any facility construction or ground disturbance.

    The general locations of the Project facilities are shown in Appendix 2.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This discovery process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation and maintenance of the planned Project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use, including residential, commercial, and prime farmland uses;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • traffic and transportation;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary and will be published and distributed to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice, beginning on page 2.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to update the project status in our ongoing consultation with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by the Applicants. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.

    Geology—Effects as a result of blasting to remove existing surface and bedrock during construction.

    Biological Resources—Effects on threatened and endangered species and sensitive habitats.

    Water Resources—Effects on waterbodies and wetlands.

    Land Use—Effects on residential and commercial areas as well as traffic and transportation corridors from construction.

    Cultural Resources—Effects on archaeological sites and historic resources.

    Air Quality and Noise—Effects on the local air quality and noise environment from construction and operation.

    Socioeconomics—Effects on Environmental Justice communities.

    Reliability and Safety—Hazards associated with natural gas pipelines and aboveground facilities.

    Alternatives—Evaluation of other locations for the new Weymouth Compressor Station.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives who receive this notice to notify their constituents about this proposed Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. This list also includes the affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities and proposed workspaces, and anyone who submits comments on the Project.

    We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the Project.

    When we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, now that the Applicants have filed their application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. As indicated in the Notice of Application for the Project issued on November 5, 2015, the deadline for motions to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10) close on November 27, 2015. However, those individuals who were not previously noticed in this proceeding may request to intervene out of time, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214(d).

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-9). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Any public meetings or site visits that are conducted by our staff will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29965 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #3

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-77-008.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-78-008.

    Applicants: UNS Electric, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-96-007.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 1000 OATT Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-97-007.

    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Co.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 1000 OATT Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-120-007.

    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 1000 OATT Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-358-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 1000 Revision to Attachment K to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-359-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to the NCPA Interconnection Agreement (SA 292) to be effective 1/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29963 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD16-3-000] Susan Raymond; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On November 12, 2015, Susan Raymond filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Powell Mesa Micro-Hydropower Project would have an installed capacity of 7.6 kilowatts (kW), and would be located at the end of an existing 12-inch pipeline used to control overflow from Susan Raymond's irrigation system. The project would be located near the Town of Hotchkiss, in Delta County, Colorado.

    Applicant Contact: Susan Raymond, 34670 Powell Mesa Road, Hotchkiss, CO 81419, Phone No. (970) 250-3714.

    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No. (202) 502-6778, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A proposed powerhouse, approximately 8 feet by 10 feet, at the end of the existing 12-inch overflow pipeline; (2) two short penstocks teeing off the existing 12-inch-diameter overflow pipeline; (3) two Turgo turbine/generator units with a total installed capacity of 7.6 kW; (4) an approximately 4 feet by 8 feet underground tailrace, discharging to a short, 8-inch-diameter pipeline that discharges to the same pond as the existing 12-inch overflow pipeline; and (5) appurtenant facilities.

    The proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 7.6 kW.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: The primary purpose of the overflow pipeline is to assist the operation of Susan Raymond's irrigation system, not for the generation of electricity. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD16-3) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29960 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-199-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: City of Sullivan to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20151117-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-200-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Village of Bethany to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20151117-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-201-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: City of Pickneyville to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20151117-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-202-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement—Bayonne Delivery Lateral—NEC to be effective 4/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 11/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20151117-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    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: RP15-23-009.

    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing RP15-23 Settlement Compliance Filing to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5029.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    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 18, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29964 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 8396-021] Great Bear Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Surrender of License.

    b. Project No.: 8396-021.

    c. Date Filed: October 26, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Great Bear Hydropower, Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Columbia Dam Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Paulins Kill, in Knowlton Township, Warren County, New Jersey.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Terry McDonnell, President, Great Bear Hydropower, Inc., 15 Brigham Hill Rd., Norwich, Vermont 05055, Phone: (802) 345-5616, Email: [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai, (202) 502-8370, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-8396-021.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the license and remove all project works inside the powerhouse and disconnect the electrical connection to the utility company. There would be no work involving ground disturbance and the equipment required to control the level of the lake would remain in place, along with all public safety features. The applicant has consulted with the relevant stakeholders and federal, state, and local agencies, all of which support the decommissioning of the project.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29969 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001, ER15-1344-002, ER15-1387-001] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Potomac Electric Power Company; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

    On November 12, 2015, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to understand PJM Interconnection, L.L.C's (PJM) application of its Order No. 1000-compliant 1 transmission planning process to local transmission facilities in PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP). All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the topics discussed during the technical conference, including:

    1Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

    • The process for planning for individual Transmission Owner FERC-filed planning criteria in Form No. 715; 2

    2See PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating Agreement, Schedule 6 § 1.2 (e) (Conformity with NERC Reliability Standards and Other Applicable Reliability Criteria).

    • the process and method PJM uses to track criteria 3 violations that drive each transmission project identified in the Subregional Local Plans and RTEP;

    3 The criteria PJM uses in its regional transmission planning process include PJM planning procedures, North American Electric Reliability Corporation Reliability Standards, Regional Entity reliability principles and standards, and the individual Transmission Owner planning criteria as filed in FERC Form No. 715, and as posted on the PJM Web site. See PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, § 1.2(e).

    • the difference, if any, between local transmission maintenance and local transmission planning;

    • which categories of transmission projects included in the RTEP are considered to be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation;

    • the process for reclassifying Supplemental Projects as Regional Projects or Subregional Projects selected in the RTEP for purposes of cost allocation, including requirements to open proposal windows for these projects;

    • whether, pursuant to section 1.5.8 of its Operating Agreement, PJM should have opened a proposal window for baseline project b2582 under its current tariff and whether other factors justify the manner in which the project was planned; and

    • how the transmission planning process used by each PJM transmission owner for Supplemental Projects complies with Order No. 890,4 specifically with respect to the coordination, openness, transparency, information exchange, comparability, and dispute resolution transmission planning principles as described by the Commission and where these processes are set forth in FERC-filed documents.

    4Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009), order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009).

    Commenters need not address every question and may provide comments on relevant issues other than those listed above. These comments are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, December 10, 2015. Reply comments are due on or before 5:00 p.m. EST January 7, 2016. The written comments will be included in the formal record of the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will form the basis for further Commission action.

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

    Nicole Buell, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6846, [email protected]. Katherine Scott, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6495, [email protected]. Ron LeComte, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8405, [email protected]. Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29966 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-35-000.

    Applicants: Solar Star Colorado III, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to FPA Section 203(a)(1)(A) and Requests for Expedited Action and Waivers of Certain Filing Requirements of Solar Star Colorado III, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-162-014; ER11-3876-017; ER11-2044-017; ER15-2211-004; ER10-2611-015.

    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, Cordova Energy Company LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC, Saranac Power Partners, L.P.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Berkshire Hathaway Eastern Parties.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-75-010.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-11-19_PSCo Order 1000 Comp filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-79-008.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 1000 OATT Fifth Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-82-008.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 1000 Compliance to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-91-007.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to Comply with October 20, 2015 Order to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-411-004.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Rate Schedule No. 274—Planning Participation Agreement to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-91-000.

    Applicants: Blythe Solar 110, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to October 15, 2015 Blythe Solar 110, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-354-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation GIA and Distribution Service Agmt Chester Adams to be effective 10/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-355-000.

    Applicants: Colonial Eagle Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application and Tariff to be effective 11/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-356-000.

    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of CPV Towantic LLC Engineering Design Permitting Siting Agreement to be effective 4/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-357-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Design and Engineering Agreement for New Hampshire Electric Coop to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20151119-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/10/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29962 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2159-005; ER10-2609-011; ER10-2606-011;ER10-2602-012.

    Applicants: Verso Maine Energy LLC, NewPage Energy Services LLC, Escanaba Paper Company, Consolidated Water Power Company.

    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2015 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of Verso MBR Entities.

    Filed Date: 11/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20151117-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1153-002; ER11-2159-004; ER10-2609-010; ER10-2606-010; ER10-2604-008; ER10-2602-011; ER10-2543-003.

    Applicants: Verso Androscoggin LLC, Verso Androscoggin Power LLC, Verso Maine Energy LLC, Luke Paper Company, New Page Energy Services, Inc., Consolidated Water Power Company, Escanaba Paper Company.

    Description: Second Supplement to February 6, 2015 Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Verso MBR and NewPage MBR Entities.

    Filed Date: 11/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20151117-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1656-006.

    Applicants: CSOLAR IV WEST, LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of CSOLAR IV WEST, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5194.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2762-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-765-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-11-16_SA 6509 White Pine 2 SSR Agreement (Settlement) to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20151116-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2477-000.

    Applicants: Golden Hills Wind, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to August 18, 2015, September 29, 2015 and October 16, 2015 Golden Hills Wind, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-342-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 4295; Queue No. Y3-033 to be effective 10/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-348-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Eversource Energy Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: The Conn. Light & Power Co., Public Service Co. of NH & Western Mass Electric Co to be effective 1/18/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-349-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: E&P Agreement for RE Tranquillity 8 LLC to be effective 11/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-350-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-11-18 Tariff Record Overlap Compliance Filing to be effective 9/10/2010.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-351-000.

    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule 137 to be effective 1/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-352-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-11-18_SA 2870 Minnesota Power Zemple Substation TIA to be effective 11/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-353-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4301; Queue #Z2-088/AA1-050 to be effective 10/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH16-1-000.

    Applicants: Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.

    Description: Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. submits FERC 65-A Exemption Notification.

    Filed Date: 11/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20151118-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29961 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 8546-022] Howard and Mildred Carter, Allen Rae Carter; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On October 26, 2015, Karl Knuchel, attorney for the estate of Mildred Carter, (Howard Carter preceded Mildred Carter in death) (transferor) and Allen Rae Carter (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of the license of the Pine Creek Hydroelectric Project No. 8546 to Allen Rae Carter. Mildred Carter, now deceased, was the surviving licensee on the project. Pursuant to Mildred Carter's will, her estate seeks to transfer the project to her son, Allen Rae Carter. The project is located on Pine Creek in Park County, Montana.

    Applicant Contact: For Applicants: Mr. Allen Rae Carter, 33 Eastep Lane, Livingston, MT 59047 and Mr. Karl Knuchel, P.C., 101 North E Street, P.O. Box 953, Livingston, MT 59047, Phone: 46-222-0135, email: [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, comments, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-8546-022.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr. Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29970 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP15-1026-000] Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference

    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 9:00 a.m. EST on December 2, 2015 at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring settlement of the above-referenced docket.

    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations under 18 CFR 385.214.

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For additional information, please contact John Perkins (202-502-6591) or Frank Kelly (202-502-8185).

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29973 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9939-30-Region 2] Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Final Determinations in New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final actions.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to announce that between April 16, 2014 and Oct 1, 2015, the Region 2 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued one final agency action and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued three final agency actions pursuant to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations codified at 40 CFR 52.21.

    DATES:

    The effective dates for the above determinations are delineated in the chart in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Frank Jon, Environmental Engineer of the Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch, Clean Air and Sustainability Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, at (212) 637-4085.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the PSD regulations, the Region 2 Office of the USEPA, and the NJDEP have made final PSD determinations relative to the facilities listed below:

    Name Location Project Agency Final action Date West Deptford Energy, LLC West Deptford Township, New Jersey A new project (Phase II) at an existing electric generating facility. It is a 427 Mw Siemens combined-cycle combustion turbine unit with duct burners, a 40 MM Btu/hr auxiliary boiler, an emergency generator, a fire water pump, and a multi-cell cooling tower NJDEP New PSD Permit June 2, 2014. RC Cape May Holdings, LLC Beesley's Point, New Jersey BL England Repowering Project—18-month extension for commencing construction of the project NJDEP PSD Permit Extension Granted October 2, 2014. West Deptford Energy, LLC West Deptford Township, New Jersey Extension of the 18-month deadline for commencing construction of the Phase II project listed above NJDEP PSD Permit Extension Granted September 29, 2015. Energy Answers, LLC Arecibo, Puerto Rico Extension of the 18-month deadline for commencing construction of the Arecibo Puerto Rico Renewable Energy Project which consists of two 1,050 tons per day (each) refuse-derived fuel municipal waste combustors, a 77 megawatt steam turbine electrical-generator, and other ancillary equipment EPA PSD Permit Extension Granted October 1, 2015 (effective date of the PSD permit extended until April 10, 2017).

    This notice lists only the facilities that have received final PSD determinations. Anyone who wishes to review these determinations and related materials should contact the following offices:

    EPA Actions

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch—25th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4085.

    NJDEP Actions

    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Permitting Element, Bureau of Preconstruction Permits, 401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, (609) 777-0286.

    With respect to the final PSD permit for West Deptford Energy, LLC, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(l), a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the determination under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), is that parties must have previously filed a petition with the EPA Environmental Appeals Board under 40 CFR 124.19(a). If the prerequisite has been met, review may be sought only by the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date on which the determination is published in the Federal Register. With respect to the PSD permit extensions, pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, judicial review of this extension decision may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date on which these determinations are published in the Federal Register. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the determinations in this Notice shall not be subject to later judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.

    Dated: November 6, 2015. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30098 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-9939-36-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee; Notification of Public Meeting and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of public meeting and public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee will host a public meeting convening on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, and adjourning Thursday, December 10, 2015. The primary discussion will focus on the draft reports from the BOSC subcommittee meetings which addressed the research and future direction for the Office of Research and Development's (ORD) National Research Programs: Air, Climate and Energy, Chemical Safety for Sustainability, Homeland Security, Human Health Risk Assessment, Safe and Sustainable Water Resources, Sustainable and Healthy Communities. The Committee will also deliberate on two ORD Cross-Cutting Research Roadmaps: Environmental Justice and Climate Change. There will be a public comment period from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2015.

    For information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see the Registration and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections below. Due to a limited number of telephone lines, attendance will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Pre-registration is required. Registration for participating via teleconference closes Friday, December 4, 2015. Registration to participate in person closes Monday, November 30, 2015. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period or to submit written public comment is Friday, December 4, 2015.

    DATES:

    The BOSC Executive Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 9, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Thursday, December 10, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate.

    Registration: In order to participate either via teleconference or in person, you must register at the following site: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-bosc-executive-committee-public-meeting-registration-19431552296. Once you have completed the online registration you will be contacted and provided with call-in or in-person instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or correspondence concerning the meeting should be directed to Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, by telephone at 202-564-6518, fax at 202-565-2911or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Charter of the BOSC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on technical and management aspects of the ORD's research program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/bosc.

    Oral Statements: Members of the public who wish to provide oral comment during the meeting must pre-register. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to five (5) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the BOSC Executive Committee, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.

    Written Statements: Written comments for the public meeting must be received by Friday, December 4, 2015, and will be included in the materials distributed to the BOSC Executive Committee prior to the meeting. Written comments should be sent to Tom Tracy, Environmental Protection Agency, via email at [email protected] or by mail to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, or submitted through regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted online at regulations.gov.

    Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy, at 202-564-6518 or via email at [email protected] To request special accommodations for a disability, please contact Tom Tracy no later than Friday, December 4, 2015, to give the Environmental Protection Agency sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: November 19, 2015. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30102 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9939-27-OA] Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National Environmental Education Foundation AGENCY:

    Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (doing business as The National Environmental Education Foundation or NEEF) was created by Section 10 of Public Law 101-619, the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established to promote and support education and training as necessary tools to further environmental protection and sustainable, environmentally sound development. It provides the common ground upon which leaders from business and industry, all levels of government, public interest groups, and others can work cooperatively to expand the reach of environmental education and training programs beyond the traditional classroom. The Foundation promotes innovative environmental education and training programs such as environmental education for medical healthcare providers and broadcast meteorologists; it also develops partnerships with government and other organizations to administer projects that promote the development of an environmentally literal public. The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as required by the terms of the Act, announces the following appointment to the National Environmental Education Foundation Board of Directors. The appointee is Mr. Robert Garcia, is a civil rights advocate who engages, educates, and empowers communities for equal access to public resources.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information regarding this Notice of Appointment, please contact Mr. Micah Ragland, Associate Administrator for Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education, U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. General information concerning NEEF can be found on their Web site at: http://www.neefusa.org.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additional Considerations: Great care has been taken to assure that this new appointee not only has the highest degree of expertise and commitment, but also brings to the Board diverse points of view relating to environmental education. This appointment is a four-year term which may be renewed once for an additional four years pending successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee.

    This appointee will join the current Board members which include:

    • Decker Anstrom (NEEF Chairman), Former U.S. Ambassador, Retired Chairman, The Weather Channel Companies

    • Diane Wood (NEEF Secretary) President, National Environmental Education Foundation

    • Carlos Alcazar, Founder and Chairman, Culture ONE World

    • Megan Reilly Cayten, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Catrinka, LLC

    • David M. Kiser (NEEF Treasurer), Vice President, Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability, International Paper

    • Wonya Lucas, President and CEO, Public Broadcasting Atlanta

    • Shannon Schuyler, Principal, Corporate Responsibility Leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)

    • Jacqueline M. Thomas, Vice President of Corporate Responsibility, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.

    • Raul Perea-Henze, MD, MPH, Managing Director, HORUS Advisors, Washington, DC

    • George Basile, Ph.D., Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

    • Jennifer Harper-Taylor, Siemens Foundation (in process)

    Background: Section 10 (a) of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 mandates a National Environmental Education Foundation. The Foundation is established in order to extend the contribution of environmental education and training to meeting critical environmental protection needs, both in this country and internationally; to facilitate the cooperation, coordination, and contribution of public and private resources to create an environmentally advanced educational system; and to foster an open and effective partnership among Federal, State, and local government, business, industry, academic institutions, community based environmental groups, and international organizations.

    The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the Foundation are—

    (A) subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the environmental education and training activities and services of the United States Environmental Protection Agency;

    (B) to conduct such other environmental education activities as will further the development of an environmentally conscious and responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;

    (C) to participate with foreign entities and individuals in the conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities for environmental education and training to address environmental issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.

    The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and projects to educate and train educational and environmental professionals, and to assist them in the development and delivery of environmental education and training programs and studies.

    The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13 directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to environmental education and training. Members of the Board are appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the Administrator will publish in the Federal Register an announcement of appointments of Directors of the Board. Such appointments become final and effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. The directors are appointed for terms of 4 years. The Administrator shall appoint an individual to serve as a director in the event of a vacancy on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the manner in which the original appointment was made. No individual may serve more than 2 consecutive terms as a director.

    Dated: November 10, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. Mr. Robert Garcia

    Mr. Robert Garcia, is the Founding Director and Counsel of The City Project, a non-profit legal and policy advocacy team in Los Angeles, California. The City Project works with diverse allies on equal access to (1) healthy green land use through community planning; (2) climate justice; (3) quality education including physical education; (4) health equity; and (5) economic vitality for all, including creating jobs and avoiding displacement. He received the President's Award from the American Public Health Association. PODER Magazine named him one of the Top 100 Latino Green Leaders. Hispanic Business Magazine has recognized him as one of the 100 most influential Latinos in the United States. Green 2.0 celebrates his work as an accomplished leader of color in the environmental field. Robert graduated from Stanford University and Stanford Law School, where he served on the Board of Editors of the Stanford Law Review. He is an Assistant Professor at Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science.

    President Barack Obama and federal agencies are catapulting The City Project's work on green access to the national level. As the President recognized in dedicating the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, “Too many children . . . especially children of color, don't have access to parks where they can run free, breathe fresh air, experience nature, and learn about their environment. This is an issue of social justice.” Conservation isn't about locking away our natural treasures. “It's about working with communities to open up our glorious heritage to everybody—young and old, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American—to make sure everybody can experience these incredible gifts.”

    The National Park Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers agree. Their studies on green access and the Santa Monica Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Los Angeles River rely on The City Project's analyses to document that there are disparities in access to green space for people of color and low-income people in Los Angeles, that these disparities contribute to health disparities, and that environmental justice requires agencies to address these disparities. The City Project worked with Ranking Member Raul Grijalva and the House Natural Resources Committee to organize the historic forum on environmental justice, climate, and health. The forum included seven Members of Congress and community advocates at the L.A. River Center in 2015.

    He has extensive experience in public policy, legal advocacy, mediation, and litigation involving complex social justice, civil rights, human health, environmental, education, and criminal justice matters. He has influenced the investment of over $43 billion in underserved communities, working at the intersection of equal justice, public health, and the built environment. He served as chairman of the Citizens' School Bond Oversight Committee for five years, helping raise over $27 billion to build new, and modernize existing, public schools as centers of their communities in Los Angeles. He has helped communities create and preserve great urban parks and preserve access to beaches and trails. He has helped diversify support for and access to state resource bonds, with unprecedented levels of support among communities of color and low-income communities, and billions of dollars for urban parks. He served on the Development Team for the National Park Service Healthy Parks, Healthy People Community Engagement eGuide. He served on Cardinal Roger Mahony's Justice and Peace Committee for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

    He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund. He received the President's Award from the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice for helping release Geronimo Pratt, the former Black Panther leader, from prison after 27 years for a crime he did not commit. He represented people on Death Row in Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. Stanford Law School called him a “civil rights giant” and Stanford Magazine “an inspiration.” He is an immigrant who came to the U.S. from Guatemala at age four.

    He has lectured widely on the vision for healthy parks, schools, and communities. Recent keynote speeches include conferences at the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New Partners for Smart Growth, and Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum. Other presentations include Stanford, Yale, Duke, Harvard Law School, Howard, UCLA, USC, Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, FLAC in Dublin, Ireland, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and National Council of La Raza (NCLR). The City Project [is] working to broaden access to parks and open space for inner-city residents and . . . to fight childhood obesity by guaranteeing that . . . students get enough physical education.”—New York Times.

    [FR Doc. 2015-29918 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9939-26-OA] Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). This teleconference is open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the FRRCC.

    DATES:

    A public teleconference will be held on December 11, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    Location: The teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donna Perla, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator (MC1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via email at [email protected], or via telephone at 202-564-0184. General information concerning the EPA FRRCC can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: EPA established the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC) in 2008 to provide independent policy advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.

    The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss progress and next steps for actions that were identified as a result of the October 22, 2015 FRRCC meeting, open to the public, in Denver, CO, (see Federal Register Notice). Discussion will include progress of the Soil Health and the Outreach and Engagement Working Groups, and identification of additional topics that members want to advise the Administrator on.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public wishing to participate or to make oral comments in the teleconference should contact Donna Perla at [email protected] or (202) 564-0184 by December 4, 2015.

    Accessibility: For information on access to this teleconference or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Donna Perla at 202-564-0184 or [email protected] To request special accommodations, please contact Donna Perla, preferably at least four working days prior to the teleconference, to allow sufficient time to process your request.

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Donna Perla, Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30096 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012323-001.

    Title: Hoegh/Hyundai Glovis Transatlantic Vessel Sharing Agreement.

    Parties: Hoegh Autoliners AS and Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth St. NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds Spain, Morocco, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Venezuela and Colombia to the geographic scope of the agreement, and corrects the address of Hyundai Glovis.

    Agreement No.: 012327-002.

    Title: “K” Line/WHL/WHS/PIL Space Charter and Sailing Agreement.

    Parties: Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) PTE Ltd.; Wan Hai Lines Ltd.; Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 799 9th Street NW., Suite 500; Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The amendment updates language in the agreement concerning operational coordination with third parties using slots provided by a party under this agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012361-001.

    Title: ELJSA/CMA CGM North West European Continent—U.S. East Coast Service Slot Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement and CMA CGM S.A.

    Filing Party: Paul M. Keane, Esq.; Cichanowicz, Callan, Keane, Vengrow & Textor, LLP; 61 Broadway, Suite 3000; New York, NY 10006-2802.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds Article 5.9 to the agreement allowing CMA CGM to communicate directly with members of the CKYHE Agreement (FMC Agreement No. 012300) who are providing the vessel space which Evergreen is chartering to CMA CGM.

    Agreement No.: 012373.

    Title: NMCC/Hoegh Autoliners Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd; Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., Ltd.; World Logistics Service, (U.S.A.), Inc.; and Hoegh Autoliners AS.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 799 9th Street NW., Suite 500; Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes the parties to charter space to one another for the carriage of vehicles and other Ro-Ro cargo in the trades between the United States and countries in the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, Northern Europe (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) and the Middle East and Mediterranean, excluding the trades from the United States East and Gulf Coasts to Bahrain and Oman.

    Agreement No.: 012373-001.

    Title: NMCC/Hoegh Autoliners Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd; Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., Ltd.; World Logistics Service, (U.S.A.), Inc.; and Hoegh Autoliners AS.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 799 9th Street NW., Suite 500; Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The amendment would expand the geographic scope of the agreement to include the trades from the United States East and Gulf Coasts to Bahrain and Oman, and change the name of the agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012374.

    Title: Seaboard/Crowley Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Crowley Caribbean Services, LLC and Seaboard Marine, Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The agreement would authorize Crowley to charter space to Seaboard in the trade from Port Everglades, FL to Jamaica.

    Agreement No.: 012375.

    Title: Hanjin/Zim Slot Exchange Agreement.

    Parties: ZIM Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. and Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.

    Filing Party: Mark E. Newcomb; ZIM American Integrated Shipping Services Co., LLC; 5801 Lake Wright Dr.; Norfolk, VA 23508.

    Synopsis: The agreement would authorize the parties to exchange slots on their respective services in the trade between ports in Asia and ports on the U.S. East Coast.

    Agreement No.: 201161-001.

    Title: AMPT/Maher Cooperative Working Agreement.

    Parties: APM Terminals North America, Inc.; Maher Terminals, Inc.; and Millennium Marine Rail LLC.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 19th Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment would reflect the fact that Maher has restructured itself as an LLC, and that APMT has placed its terminal operations in a wholly-owned subsidiary. It would also correct the addresses of the parties to the agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: November 20, 2015. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-30036 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 11, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. William H. Croak, Sherri L. Croak, John R. Croak, Heather M. Croak, Shelly Croak Yocham, and Tobin N. Yocham, all of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, either individually and/or as Co-Trustees of the Croak Family Holdings Trust under agreement dated effective July 1, 2015, of Midwest City, Oklahoma, and the John R. and Heather M. Croak Family Trust dated June 30, 2005, the William H. and Sherri L. Croak Family Trust dated June 30, 2005, and the Tobin N. & Shelly Croak Yocham Family Trust dated October 1, 2015, all of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, all as members of the Croak family control group acting in concert; to acquire voting shares of First Midwest Acquisition Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of FNB Community Bank, both in Midwest City, Oklahoma, and FinancePoint, Inc., Del City, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 20, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-29999 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve 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 number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR 3066a, b, c, and d, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.). Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection 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.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, With Revision, of the Following Report

    1. Report title: Federal Reserve Payments Study.

    Agency form number: FR 3066a, b, c, and d.

    OMB control number: 7100-0351.

    Frequency: FR 3066a, b: triennial with shorter annual versions to a subset of respondents, FR 3066c: triennial, and FR 3066d: annual and on occasion.

    Reporters: Depository and financial institutions, payment networks, payment processors, and payment instrument issuers.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR 3066a triennial: 43,200 hours; FR 3066a annual: 1,700 hours; FR 3066b triennial: 1,000 hours; FR 3066b annual: 150 hours; FR 3066c: 450 hours: FR 3066d: 600 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR 3066a triennial: 32 hours; FR 3066a annual: 10 hours; FR 3066b triennial: 8 hours; FR 3066b annual: 5 hours; FR 3066c: 3 hours: FR 3066d: 12 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR 3066a triennial: 1,350 respondents; FR 3066a annual: 85 respondents; FR 3066b triennial: 125 respondents; FR 3066b annual: 15 respondents; FR 3066c: 150 respondents: FR 3066d: 50 respondents.

    General description of report: This information collection is broadly authorized under sections 2A and 12A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 225a and 12 U.S.C. 263) and is voluntary. The information is given confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4))).

    Abstract: The FR 3066a, FR 3066b, and FR 3066c are triennial surveys. The FR 3066d is conducted up to one time per year. These surveys are designed to collect information needed to support the Federal Reserve System's (FRS) role in the retail payments system.1

    1 The Federal Reserve plays a vital role in the U.S. payments system, fostering its safety and efficiency, and providing a variety of financial services to depository institutions. The Federal Reserve is involved with both retail and wholesale payments. Retail payments are generally for relatively small-dollar amounts and often involve a depository institution's retail clients—individuals, businesses, and governments. The Reserve Banks' retail services include distributing currency and coin, collecting checks, and electronically transferring funds through the automated clearinghouse system. By contrast, wholesale payments are generally for large dollar amounts, and often involve a depository institution's large corporate customers or counterparties, including other financial institutions.

    The FR 3066a, FR 3066b, FR 3066c, and FR 3066d are the latest iteration of the Federal Reserve Payments Study (FRPS), which has been conducted since 2000. The FRPS originated from a system-wide effort to improve the measurement and public availability of information on volumes and trends in checks and other noncash payments. Despite the retail payments system's critical importance in supporting everyday commerce, there was a significant gap in quantitative information on U.S. retail payments before 2000. The FRPS filled this gap by providing a reliable and transparent non-mandatory survey-based approach to collecting payments industry data on retail payment volumes and trends.

    A U.S. payments system that is safe, efficient, and broadly accessible is vital to the U.S. economy, and the Federal Reserve plays an important role in promoting these qualities as a leader, catalyst for change, and provider of payment services to financial institutions and the U.S. Treasury. In 2012, Federal Reserve Financial Services (FRFS), managed by the Reserve Banks, refreshed its strategic direction to focus on meeting the evolving needs of payment system users for end-to-end payment speed, efficiency and security, while remaining true to its longstanding financial services mission to foster the integrity, efficiency and accessibility of the U.S. payment system.2 FRFS identified gaps in available data on payments fraud and payment security threats. In support of these efforts, the Federal Reserve proposes to leverage the FR 3066 surveys, where appropriate, to collect and improve the availability of aggregate payments fraud and security information.

    2 See the FedPayments Improvement Web site for more information (https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/).

    The FRPS helps to support FRFS goals by producing information on aggregate volumes and trends in the payments system and sharing that information with the financial services and payments industry and the public. The aggregate survey results are widely cited in academic working papers and journal articles, industry publications, reported in the media, and used by the public, industry, and the Federal Reserve as the quantitative aggregate benchmark on payments activity in the United States. Questions in the surveys consist primarily of quantitative payment transaction volume data in the form of number-value pairs, and require knowledgeable personnel at participating organizations to reference their confidential commercial and financial records. The surveys also contain a smaller amount of categorical questions (e.g., Yes/No/Don't Know) to help clarify the meaning and content of the responses to volume questions. Because of the confidential nature of the information, individual response data are only used to produce aggregate estimates and are not disclosed.

    The Retail Payments Risk Forum (RPRF) and the Retail Payments Office (RPO) play key roles within the Federal Reserve's strategic framework. The mission of the RPRF is to identify, detect, and encourage mitigation of risk in retail payments through research, and through collaboration with industry stakeholders. RPRF will provide leadership and assistance with the surveys, in recognition of the importance of payments security to the FRS and the increasing focus on payments fraud and security of the FRPS. The RPO provides leadership in payments services, operates check and Automated Clearing House (ACH) clearance services, and will continue to support study planning, contractor procurement, contracting, and survey execution.

    As the noncash payments system has continued to grow larger and more complex and as policymakers, the industry, and the public face more choices related to the payments system, the Federal Reserve believe that the data collected under the FR 3066 surveys play a crucial role in objectively maintaining and updating quantitative information on the U.S. retail payments system and should be continued in 2016 through 2018. The FRS's role as a trusted leader in payments processing, its essential role in policymaking, and the successful record of the data collected under the FRPS uniquely positions the Federal Reserve to collect these data.

    The FR 3066a currently collects information on the national volume (number and value) of major categories and subcategories of established and emerging methods of payment from a nationally representative stratified random sample of depository institutions.3 Most questions in the surveys consist of payment and related transactions organized as number-value pairs. The FR 3066b currently comprises 15 different surveys, each specific to a particular payment instrument and/or respondent type (respondents only answer surveys that apply to their organizations). It collects information from a census of payment networks, processors, and issuers. The FR 3066c currently collects data from samples of individual checks obtained from a set of depository institutions. The FR 3066d is an ad-hoc supplement to the other FR 3066 surveys.

    3 To obtain comprehensive coverage of total national volumes the survey may also include non-depository financial institutions.

    The Federal Reserve currently use data collected from the FR 3066a and FR 3066b to estimate aggregate totals and trends in (1) the number and value of various types of payment and withdrawal transactions processed by financial institutions that hold transaction deposit, prepaid card program, or credit card accounts domiciled in the United States; (2) the number and value of various types of payments that are facilitated by payment networks, payment processors, and payment instrument issuers within the United States; (3) inter- and intra-bank volumes; (4) the usage of different types of prepaid cards; (5) transaction volumes of emerging payment